13 ms·

Canon has sold its last film camera

296 points by gringoDan 8y ago

snowwrestler 8y ago
I'm not surprised; in SLRs at least, Canon was never the dominant film camera company with the biggest customer base. Their SLR business did not catch up to and pass Nikon until the digital era. Canon's decision to put the AF motor in the lens helped them in verticals that use huge telephotos (sports, mostly). But their film cameras lagged Nikon in the sophistication of their AF, their automated exposure control, and especially their flash exposure control. These were all big deals in the era when every frame was precious and mistakes were hidden until it's too late (after the film was developed). In digital cameras their AF system is now on par, and auto exposure is just less important in general because of the ease of reviewing and post-processing for exposure. They started moving past Nikon about 15 years ago by creating sensors that were cheaper, larger, and had lower noise. Since then they have filled in gaps in their lens lines, and used their expertise in video, to maintain their lead.
- jonknee 8y ago
  Well that and there is almost no market for new film cameras.
  - sjm-lbm 8y ago
    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 film SLR that includes the features that bring their cameras ahead of Nikon is because they don't think enough people will want to pay for them. And that's probably right.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      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.
      - CarVac 8y ago
        Film still cameras, not film cinema cameras.
        jacquesm 8y ago
        Ah sorry. That's a Dutchism, 'film' here is moving.
      - kristoffer 8y ago
        You’re confusing film and video. Anyway (D)SLR use phase detect autofocus in which you don’t have to figure out much at all. Mirrorless is another thing.
  - vvanders 8y ago
    I'd argue there is for Medium/Large format, but that's a whole different ballgame compared to consumer SLRs. Last time I looked the digital back for a Hasselblad was ~$30k.
    - wl 8y ago
      Maybe the market for medium format film is better, but my experience with large format is that people practically give the gear away.
      - lb1lf 8y ago
        That depends. Sure, you can dip your toes in the large format pool quite cheaply (everything, as they say, is relative!) - but the fancier optics and cameras get pretty expensive pretty fast. (Not to mention the cost of 4x5 or (shudder!) 8x10 processing; B&W is eminently doable in the home, but IMHO where LF really, really shines is with dias film - developing that at home is not for the faint of heart.)
    - jonknee 8y ago
      And in the scheme of things there is almost no market for medium / large format cameras (digital or otherwise).
      - ekianjo 8y ago
        Of course there is a market. Look at used cameras, they sell at very high prices. There is no "mass market", but there is definitely one with quite a few people willing to pay premium for high end film cameras.
        jonknee 8y ago
        That's why I said "in the scheme of things". It's a tiny business. I love cameras and will probably have a medium format digital camera at some point, but it's a tiny business that can't move the needle in a $34b company like Canon. Put another way, if over night Canon had won 100% market share of all film cameras it would not be noticeable in the next quarterly earnings report.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    No need. Even film cameras from the early 2000s sell for quite cheap these days and take excellent photos. What matters for film more is the end medium, i.e. the film itself. The optics and sensors make it easier to take good pictures but that hasn't changed the game for film since the 70s, except for specific things like sports where having a camera that can take 6fps was a great feature.
    - cuckcuckspruce 8y ago
      I remember my dad going to all of our family gatherings and baseball/basketball/soccer games with his trusty Canon A-1. He passed it along with a few of the lenses he no longer needed when he moved to a Canon SLR, and it's been my trusty sidekick when documenting family gatherings and niece/nephew's baseball/basketball/soccer games (though it helps my {brother,sister}s{,-in-law} don't share pictures on Facebook - they want a nice scrapbook like their parents had for them).
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    Sure, but Nikon and Leica still sell 35mm film cameras. I think that because they were the dominant brands in 35mm in the film era, they still have fans today among people who still like to shoot film.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Almost no - but what tiny market there is, is growing. My favorite pet project to watch right now is https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reflexcamera/reflex-bringing-back-the-analogue-slr-camera https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reflexcamera/reflex-bri...
  - anta40 8y ago
    Well, there are always exceptions. Leica still make film cameras: https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-A https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-A https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082912-REG/leica_10370_m_a_rangefinder_camera_body.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082912-REG/leica_103... No autofocus, no auto-exposure, and costs almost $4700 body only. Not something the typical film shooters will use, though :p
- bitL 8y ago
  What lead are you talking about? Canon's sensors were a running joke in the past 5 years comparing to Nikon (that used modified Sony sensors), manufactured in 3 generation-older process than their competition. Seeing e.g. D750 vs 5D MkIII in low-light was an eye opener. The only selling point of Canon remained their unique "pleasant" color mapping (and photographers getting stuck with older Canon-only lenses/strobes etc.).
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    Canon had an early lead in sensor noise (they bet big on CMOS early on when most of the market was treating CCD as the future), from the early 2000s up until Sony moved to on-chip ADC around 2009-2010 and Nikon adopted their sensors wholesale. It's worth noting that Canon has moved to on-chip ADC and that there's now only around a stop difference in noise between their sensors and Sony's, but from 2010-2016ish, Sony was certainly far ahead of the game.
    - giobox 8y ago
      Exactly this. Canon had significant performance advantages in the mid 2000s thanks to their bet on CMOS technology when almost everyone else believed CCD had superior image quality. This really showed in the clean high ISO performance one got in their DSLRs vs the competition at that time, and it took a long while for competition to really catch up. This reminds me when the first “affordable” DSLRs from canon and Nikon arrived - both 6 megapixel models (the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel and the Nikon D70). The D70 was the better camera in a great many ways, but many buyers still chose the 300D to get access to the incredibly good for the time low noise CMOS sensor. I can’t count the number of discussions I had with friends looking to get a first DSLR debating the relative merits of those two landmark cameras. A later firmware hack for the 300D that gave it almost all the features of the more expensive 10D made this debate very interesting as well. The past 5 years are less impressive though, for sure, with the great sensor hardware from Sony etc.
  - gnarcoregrizz 8y ago
    Canon's sensors are decent, not a running joke as you say. But yeah they are known more for their colors (which is actually very important). Sony has destroyed the competition with their sensors though, and has really pushed the boundaries, at least until recently with that 50 mpix sensor that Canon released. Haven't researched that much though, I'm a few years behind myself. That said, Canon has historically been the winner with their lens selection, and IMO UX. Sony is quickly catching up, or even surpassing them though with e-mount, especially now that more 3rd party lens manufacturers are killing it (Sigma). I also like EVFs more than OVFs since you get a better exposure preview and focus peeking for manual focus. I really, really, really wanted to buy a Sony a7, but I ended up buying a Canon 6d due to lens selection a few years ago (and the Canon beat them on price). I'm a huge fan of mirrorless tech and I'm actually surprised that SLRs are still around. The camera body is being commoditized. I'm a canon fan and hope they catch up with a full frame mirrorless, my buddy who follows the tech more said he's heard rumors that they are releasing one next year?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- anthonybsd 8y ago
  >But their film cameras lagged Nikon in the sophistication of their AF, their automated exposure control, and especially their flash exposure control. I'm sorry, but you are completely off base here. Nikon always had the lead in flash exposure, yes. But in AF and lenses especially? Canon was the first to completely break compatibility with their older (FD mount) lenses which allowed them to have lightning fast autofocus (Ultrasonic line), which took Nikon more than a decade to catch up to. Same with exposure zones and metering accuracy combined with extremely fast drives - this basically meant that Canon took over sports photography in the mid 90s.
  - stan_rogers 8y ago
    Yessir. They were first to break compatibility, immediately (ish) after Minolta did it.
    - cptskippy 8y ago
      True and his transgression was an easy one to make because most people will say "Mi..who?" They merged with Konica sometime in the early 2000s and exited the camera market. Minolta was never considered more than a prosumer camera maker, it's cameras lacked many essential features that professional photographers demanded in their SLRs.
      - foobar1962 8y ago
        Sony bought part of the Minolta/ Konica camera business. Minolta had an AF slr very early in the game iirc. They weren’t pro mainly because they didn’t have an extensive range of lenses ands accessories, and the lenses were mainly slow zooms.
        stan_rogers 8y ago
        They actually had a pretty extensive range of lenses and accessories (bulk film backs, drives and grips, etc.), and had those cool white f/2.8 zooms and teles before Canon did. Some of those lenses, like the 24mm VFC (variable field curvature), were unique to the line and allowed a photographer to pull off shots that wouldn't be practical again until digital composition (focus stacking, etc.) came along. They also had a decent TTL flash system way ahead of the game - you could pull a full-on Joe McNally job, but you needed to do it cabled. Their real problem was dropping into and out of the pro market at irregular intervals. Every time the put together a killer, truly professional-level body system, the market reaction was, "yeah, I don't want to invest in a system that's going to be orphaned next week," which led to it being orphaned the next week. I'd already moved on to medium and large format when the Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha hit, but it was still maddening to see my old favourite shooting themselves in the foot over and over again.
jccalhoun 8y ago
"The model in question is the EOS-1V, which, incidentally, the company actually stopped making a full eight years ago. Since it has simply been selling out the rest of its stock, which, it seems, has finally depleted." That says a lot about how few they have been selling.
- alex_duf 8y ago
  or how big their stock was?
- ekianjo 8y ago
  > That says a lot about how few they have been selling. Well, Canon has done zero marketing for this model and focused solely on digital cameras, so I would even wager nobody knew it was still being sold!
- wiredfool 8y ago
  I think that's pretty standard for a lot of camera equipment. They'll do a run of one lens, and then a run of another, rather than 10 of this and 10 of that.
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    I dunno about other companies, but Canon does "cellular" manufacturing rather than having huge lines all dedicated to just one thing. Each cell is 5-or-6 small reconfigurable stations manned by a couple of people, who build a body or lens from start to finish, rapidly re-taskable to different lenses or bodies on the fly. Hundreds of cells on a manufacturing floor.
- ethagknight 8y ago
  I don’t know that you can read between those lines, manufacturing one unit might cost nearly the same as manufacturing a million units, so might as well stock up despite waning sales based on where you think the obsolescence tail wraps up. For a momentous event like their last film camera sale, today may well have been their target date from 8 years back. I have a cousin that works in Arrow Electronics’ obsolescence division, where they buy out final production lots in aging technologies (basically keep production lines going a few more months or years) with the intent to supply users of obsolete but operational systems with a fresh supply of parts and service. Lots of government and military equipment. lucrative business and there is an art to projecting future demand of obsolete tech. Not saying that this was Canon’s intent as well, but it was eye opening hearing him talk about his business.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
acomjean 8y ago
As someone who shot and developed a lot of film (I was a photo editor at a daily college paper..) I won’t miss it. Though printing black and white pictures was kinda fun, they often had dust and getting the exporsure and contrast right was tedious. I don’t miss film. Though there were a lot less pictures taken and shared before everyone had a camera on their phone. A different time in a lot of ways.
- yesimahuman 8y ago
  I think film is awesome, provided you have the right process and you actually enjoy that process (or you are fine spending $20/roll to have a lab develop and scan for you). Certainly has been going through a hipster revival of sorts lately.
  - gringoDan 8y ago
    I agree that there’s something magical about film cameras. I’m 25 years old now, so I’m probably one of the last people to ever experience working in a darkroom during photography class. There is a sense of anticipation and discovery in having a limited number of photos on a roll of film and not knowing how they’ll turn out until you develop them yourself. Undoubtedly, the photos that you thought would be incredible turn out to be duds, but you’ll also find a gem or two in shots that you thought would be mediocre. In an age of infinite options, limitless data, and constant connectivity, I’m drawn more and more to these examples of deliberate limitation / non-scalable craftsmanship.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    B&W printing in particular has a certain hands-on craftwork aspect to it that you don't really get with digital in the same way. (Working on a computer with Photoshop or Lightroom isn't really the same thing although it takes an equal amount of skill.) That said, I never really got into multi-hour printing sessions to get a print just perfect. I always came more from the newspaper than the fine art mindset. So it's one of those things that leads me to reminisce about how that was fun without any real desire to ever do it again.
- ghaff 8y ago
sofaofthedamned 8y ago
I don't understand why Google / MS / Amazon etc don't buy either of Nikon or Canon? It'd give them credibility and they'd immediately improve the DSLRs. Imagine a decent Nikon with the Google Photos processing? Decent wifi? Regular updates?
- jonknee 8y ago
  Google / MS / Amazon don't need any credibility and Nikon and Canon already have it? It's a niche business without a ton of growth potential? Google already got into the pro photo market by buying Nik and decided it was not worth the effort. https://petapixel.com/2017/05/30/google-abandons-nik-collection-popular-photo-editing-software/ https://petapixel.com/2017/05/30/google-abandons-nik-collect...
- fetus8 8y ago
  What credibility are Nikon or Canon missing? Both companies have a level of brand recognition unrivaled in the Photography world...? Only in recent years has Sony and maybe Fujifilm developed more respect due to some of their advancements where Nikon and Canon have lacked. Their DSLR's are market leaders still. Again, only in recent years have Mirrorless cameras have started to catch up with the DSLRs Nikon and Canon have been releasing. Based on current rumors, both Canon and Nikon are supposedly working on their first serious Mirrorless cameras to compete with the likes of Sony's A7 series... EDIT: Personally, I would avoid any camera that had Google integration built in. Part of the reason I still carry around a DSLR today is because I like knowing that the photos on my camera, and then stored on a local HDD at my house. I don't think I'm alone in this thought either. Computational Photography is cool and all, but I don't need to provide all my photos into a server farm to be analyzed.
  - sofaofthedamned 8y ago
    Good points, but the market is dying for DSLRs. I wince each time I use mine for the terrible wifi capability, the awful OS, etc. Why can't it be modernised? Because Canon and Nikon won't do it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
topbagsvk 8y ago
Only in recent years have Mirrorless cameras have started to catch up with the DSLRs Nikon and Canon have been releasing. http://www.handbagsmini.com/hermes/handmade-bags-collection.html http://www.handbagsmini.com/hermes/handmade-bags-collection....
mauvehaus 8y ago
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 appear. Plus there's something about the smell of a darkroom. The hot lamps of the enlargers create a smell that mixes with the smell of the fixer and the stop bath that's unmistakable. Would I want to do any of this if I were shooting weddings? Definitely not. If I'm taking my camera for a walk and want to see what I've captured, absolutely! The other thing that's a damned shame is the way the manufacturing has changed. I've long been a Pentax man, and the old Super-Takumar and Super-Multi-Coated (as distinct from the later SMC) lenses are a pleasure to use[0]. Everything about the way they fall to hand is perfect, and the machining is immaculate. The focus ring is scalloped and knurled, and it's metal. They must have cost a fortune to make. The SMC, K, M, and I'd assume the A series lenses have a lot more plastic on the outside of the lenses, but the feel of the focusing helix is still beyond reproach. Modern lenses, by comparison, are made so that they can be driven by the autofocus mechanisms, and the feel of the ring in manual mode is terrible. That isn't to say that the modern lenses are optically worse; I'm sure the situation is quite the opposite. Nonetheless, something has been lost. Again all of this is moot for most people looking for the most productivity out of their tools, or for the people shooting casually. The small group of people in the middle, they'll miss it. Honestly, it's like CD (or any other digital medium) vs records. Records are quantitatively worse by any measure, but for the sheer pleasure of the experience, they can't be matched. If I want to sit down and actually listen to music, part of the enjoyment is the smell of the record and its sleeve, and the tangible process of putting the needle on the record. [0] Super Takumar and SMC Takumars here: http://blog.prairierimimages.com/2011/08/old-glass-asahipentax-smc-super-takumar.html http://blog.prairierimimages.com/2011/08/old-glass-asahipent... The Super-Multi-Coated Takumars are essentially identical from the outside.
- hamitron 8y ago
  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.
_ph_ 8y ago
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.
- fetus8 8y ago
  Thankfully Fuji's Instax line is alive and kicking, with their instant film readily available.
  - kakwa_ 8y ago
    RIP 35mm Fujifilm Neopan. The 1600 was a great high ASA film.
    - haxxorfreak 8y ago
      So sad that they’re discontinuing Neopan ACROS 100 this fall too. It’s still my favourite “modern” emulsion as it has a beautiful tone curve and amazing dynamic range if developed properly.
- carbolite103 8y ago
  As far as 35mm systems it's pretty much just Leica and Nikon at the moment, though I would imagine that Nikon is close to discontinuing their F6 flagship soon. Thankfully many 35mm cameras from the 70s and 80s are engineering masterpieces that will likely keep functioning well into the second half of this century. I just hope that companies will continue making film stocks for them.
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    Nikon stopped building the F6 a number of years ago. They're just selling through old stock at this point.
jacquesm 8y ago
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 market for digital don't count out Sony.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  I recall reading a really interesting article on how Sony is doing something similar to what Canon did to overtake Nikon back in the day. Perhaps I even found the article through HN.
- geerlingguy 8y ago
  > 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).
  - petepete 8y ago
    > 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) I'm not sure this has been true since the Sony α9. Its autofocusing abilities are amazing, and that's coming from me - a Nikon fan and D500 owner. If I shot people rather than wildlife, I'd probably switch for the eye-AF alone.
mvexel 8y ago
I'm seriously curious how they were able to sell that last inventory. Folks buying them for nostalgic reasons? Was there a real market left for top of the line film SLRs that wasn't served by the used camera market? You can get really good used ones for not very much money. As a film shooter for 20+ years, I decided to break out my old Nikon FA and shoot a roll of film today to mark the occasion. (I still keep some in the fridge, Velvia 50 Daylight.) I wonder if the last place that would still develop slide film around here last time I needed film developed still does it. If they still take film, they probably ship it some place to get it developed rather than do it in-house like they used to.
chuckkir 8y ago
I was talking to a friend who recently got into 35mm film cameras. He develops the color film himself, but then immediately scans it in and uses digital tools to work on the images. I left a bit confused; what is he gaining by using film as the medium?
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  One of the popular trends right now is scanning a film picture or a piece of physical artwork and then adding things with digital means. I'm not sure that the film adds anything whatsoever - nor the physical artwork since digital is pretty good at mimicking all of it. I think it is all about the process and the skillset a person is showing off. In his case, he winds up with an image that has a lot of steps, has a lot of room for error (film processing), and not many people can repeat his exact process. People pay for this sort of thing as much as they pay for a clever gimmick.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    I tried to muck around with color film processing once upon a time but I found it to be a PITA exacting process that was pretty much straight follow the recipe. I totally get trying out B&W processing and printing for the sake of the experience even if I have no personal interest in trying it again. But color doesn't have any appeal whatsoever.
- wepple 8y ago
  Film has a particular look and feel to it that I’ve absolutely never seen replicated in digital. I’m confident that one day it probably will be; maybe ML will be up to the task where filters and transforms just can’t do the right job? Besides that, the process of taking photographs is surprisingly different. You don’t spray and pray - a shutter costs you more than a dollar so you spend more time looking, and learn to hunt with your eyes more. It’s impossible to check your photos on the LCD, so you just get on with photography, and have an element of suspense to find out what you captured. Also, no batteries to go flat. There’s also a forced creativity when working with basic controls like aperture and shutter speed, instead of hundreds of different settings and knobs to get caught up in. Of course, if I were a profession photographer these would in no way make up for the downsides, so hand me that 5d/d600/M-P, but they’re reasons you may still shoot film and translate to digital to share/store.
ccnafr 8y ago
Original source: https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/canon-is-now-out-of-the-film-camera-business-after-80-years/ https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/canon-is-now-out-of-the-fil... I'm so tired of the TechCrunch blog spam on this site. They've literally stolen another site's news story and HN mods never replace their links with the original source of the article. Why is this site always given a pass for content theft?
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  You can always email hn@ycombinator.com to reach the mods with suggestions like URL changes. They usually respond pretty quick.
- ArlenBales 8y ago
  TechCrunch gives YCombinator a lot of publicity, for example pieces about its demo days. Of course there's a business relationship of sorts at play here.
- ginger2016 8y ago
  What makes petapixel original source in this case ? Techcruch is reporting an official Cannon announcement not breaking an exclusive story.
  - GuiA 8y ago
    From the first paragraph of the article: The news was spotted by PetaPixel on the camera giant’s Japanese support forum.
    - ccnafr 8y ago
      Breaking a story should be rewarded. Ok, I'll admit it. I hate sites like TechCrunch or The Verge that simply take reports from other news sites, reword them, and then pass them as their own. It disturbs me to learn that HN favors TechCrunch like this.
      - 8y ago
mathewsanders 8y ago
When I was 16 (1997) a photographer friend of my parents gave me his old Canon AE-1 (I think released in 1980 or 81) it’s shutter wasn’t working and I took it into the local Canon center where they fixed the shutter, replaced light seal on film door, and even gave me a lens cap for something like NZD$50. Amazing that companies used to build such sturdy products that they could be cheaply fixed 15+ years after they were sold... Also sort of amazing is that Canon even had a physical presence that as a consumer I could visit a physical offices and drop of a product in person to be fixed!
- rangibaby 8y ago
  > Amazing that companies used to build such sturdy products that they could be cheaply fixed 15+ years after they were sold... The award for most durable SLR has to go to the Pentax Spotmatic. The first ones were released in 1964, and they are seemingly indestructible. Even the exposure meter is a future-proof design; it was designed for mercury (1.35V) batteries but the circuit was designed in a way that modern LR44 (1.5V) cells "just work"! Nikon lenses from the same era generally need a CLA because the grease used on their focusing helicoids gums up over the years and makes focusing feel dry, bumpy, and just plain nasty. I have come across some Super Takumar (Pentax) examples that are moldy enough that they would probably grow mushrooms if you left them outside soon the shady side of a tree, but the focusing feel is always smooth and perfect. The only lens I have that feels better is a Voigtlander and it cost $500 vs $10 for an ugly but usable Super Takumar lens.
  - lb1lf 8y ago
    -The Pentax Spotmatic is wonderful (I used my father's Spotmatic for years until I had saved enough to get my own SLR - my teenage rebellion was buying into the F system rather than Pentax... :)) I'd argue that the Nikon FM2 is just about as indestructible, though - but I won't argue about the lenses; I have enough old Nikkor optics to know better!
    - rangibaby 8y ago
      Ohhh yeah! I don't have an FM but do have an FE and it is probably my favorite camera full stop. It's just the right amount of "camera", and is never annoying or frustrating to use, in either automatic or manual modes. Agreed 100% on the indestructibility - whoever used mine before I got it dented and brassed up good. The camera doesn't care. The focusing screen is a joy and better than any DSLR. It's telling that the big and bright finder is a selling point of the D850. If you still use your FM2 I would suggest getting a K3 screen. Nikon still sell them new!

296 points by gringoDan 8y ago

I'm not surprised; in SLRs at least, Canon was never the dominant film camera company with the biggest customer base. Their SLR business did not catch up to and pass Nikon until the digital era. Canon's decision to put the AF motor in the lens helped them in verticals that use huge telephotos (sports, mostly). But their film cameras lagged Nikon in the sophistication of their AF, their automated exposure control, and especially their flash exposure control. These were all big deals in the era when every frame was precious and mistakes were hidden until it's too late (after the film was developed). In digital cameras their AF system is now on par, and auto exposure is just less important in general because of the ease of reviewing and post-processing for exposure. They started moving past Nikon about 15 years ago by creating sensors that were cheaper, larger, and had lower noise. Since then they have filled in gaps in their lens lines, and used their expertise in video, to maintain their lead.

jonknee 8y ago
Well that and there is almost no market for new film cameras.
- sjm-lbm 8y ago
  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 film SLR that includes the features that bring their cameras ahead of Nikon is because they don't think enough people will want to pay for them. And that's probably right.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    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.
    - CarVac 8y ago
      Film still cameras, not film cinema cameras.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        Ah sorry. That's a Dutchism, 'film' here is moving.
    - kristoffer 8y ago
      You’re confusing film and video. Anyway (D)SLR use phase detect autofocus in which you don’t have to figure out much at all. Mirrorless is another thing.
- vvanders 8y ago
  I'd argue there is for Medium/Large format, but that's a whole different ballgame compared to consumer SLRs. Last time I looked the digital back for a Hasselblad was ~$30k.
  - wl 8y ago
    Maybe the market for medium format film is better, but my experience with large format is that people practically give the gear away.
    - lb1lf 8y ago
      That depends. Sure, you can dip your toes in the large format pool quite cheaply (everything, as they say, is relative!) - but the fancier optics and cameras get pretty expensive pretty fast. (Not to mention the cost of 4x5 or (shudder!) 8x10 processing; B&W is eminently doable in the home, but IMHO where LF really, really shines is with dias film - developing that at home is not for the faint of heart.)
  - jonknee 8y ago
    And in the scheme of things there is almost no market for medium / large format cameras (digital or otherwise).
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      Of course there is a market. Look at used cameras, they sell at very high prices. There is no "mass market", but there is definitely one with quite a few people willing to pay premium for high end film cameras.
      - jonknee 8y ago
        That's why I said "in the scheme of things". It's a tiny business. I love cameras and will probably have a medium format digital camera at some point, but it's a tiny business that can't move the needle in a $34b company like Canon. Put another way, if over night Canon had won 100% market share of all film cameras it would not be noticeable in the next quarterly earnings report.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  No need. Even film cameras from the early 2000s sell for quite cheap these days and take excellent photos. What matters for film more is the end medium, i.e. the film itself. The optics and sensors make it easier to take good pictures but that hasn't changed the game for film since the 70s, except for specific things like sports where having a camera that can take 6fps was a great feature.
  - cuckcuckspruce 8y ago
    I remember my dad going to all of our family gatherings and baseball/basketball/soccer games with his trusty Canon A-1. He passed it along with a few of the lenses he no longer needed when he moved to a Canon SLR, and it's been my trusty sidekick when documenting family gatherings and niece/nephew's baseball/basketball/soccer games (though it helps my {brother,sister}s{,-in-law} don't share pictures on Facebook - they want a nice scrapbook like their parents had for them).
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  Sure, but Nikon and Leica still sell 35mm film cameras. I think that because they were the dominant brands in 35mm in the film era, they still have fans today among people who still like to shoot film.
- jacobush 8y ago
  Almost no - but what tiny market there is, is growing. My favorite pet project to watch right now is https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reflexcamera/reflex-bringing-back-the-analogue-slr-camera https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reflexcamera/reflex-bri...
- anta40 8y ago
  Well, there are always exceptions. Leica still make film cameras: https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-A https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-A https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082912-REG/leica_10370_m_a_rangefinder_camera_body.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082912-REG/leica_103... No autofocus, no auto-exposure, and costs almost $4700 body only. Not something the typical film shooters will use, though :p
bitL 8y ago
What lead are you talking about? Canon's sensors were a running joke in the past 5 years comparing to Nikon (that used modified Sony sensors), manufactured in 3 generation-older process than their competition. Seeing e.g. D750 vs 5D MkIII in low-light was an eye opener. The only selling point of Canon remained their unique "pleasant" color mapping (and photographers getting stuck with older Canon-only lenses/strobes etc.).
- msbarnett 8y ago
  Canon had an early lead in sensor noise (they bet big on CMOS early on when most of the market was treating CCD as the future), from the early 2000s up until Sony moved to on-chip ADC around 2009-2010 and Nikon adopted their sensors wholesale. It's worth noting that Canon has moved to on-chip ADC and that there's now only around a stop difference in noise between their sensors and Sony's, but from 2010-2016ish, Sony was certainly far ahead of the game.
  - giobox 8y ago
    Exactly this. Canon had significant performance advantages in the mid 2000s thanks to their bet on CMOS technology when almost everyone else believed CCD had superior image quality. This really showed in the clean high ISO performance one got in their DSLRs vs the competition at that time, and it took a long while for competition to really catch up. This reminds me when the first “affordable” DSLRs from canon and Nikon arrived - both 6 megapixel models (the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel and the Nikon D70). The D70 was the better camera in a great many ways, but many buyers still chose the 300D to get access to the incredibly good for the time low noise CMOS sensor. I can’t count the number of discussions I had with friends looking to get a first DSLR debating the relative merits of those two landmark cameras. A later firmware hack for the 300D that gave it almost all the features of the more expensive 10D made this debate very interesting as well. The past 5 years are less impressive though, for sure, with the great sensor hardware from Sony etc.
- gnarcoregrizz 8y ago
  Canon's sensors are decent, not a running joke as you say. But yeah they are known more for their colors (which is actually very important). Sony has destroyed the competition with their sensors though, and has really pushed the boundaries, at least until recently with that 50 mpix sensor that Canon released. Haven't researched that much though, I'm a few years behind myself. That said, Canon has historically been the winner with their lens selection, and IMO UX. Sony is quickly catching up, or even surpassing them though with e-mount, especially now that more 3rd party lens manufacturers are killing it (Sigma). I also like EVFs more than OVFs since you get a better exposure preview and focus peeking for manual focus. I really, really, really wanted to buy a Sony a7, but I ended up buying a Canon 6d due to lens selection a few years ago (and the Canon beat them on price). I'm a huge fan of mirrorless tech and I'm actually surprised that SLRs are still around. The camera body is being commoditized. I'm a canon fan and hope they catch up with a full frame mirrorless, my buddy who follows the tech more said he's heard rumors that they are releasing one next year?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
anthonybsd 8y ago
>But their film cameras lagged Nikon in the sophistication of their AF, their automated exposure control, and especially their flash exposure control. I'm sorry, but you are completely off base here. Nikon always had the lead in flash exposure, yes. But in AF and lenses especially? Canon was the first to completely break compatibility with their older (FD mount) lenses which allowed them to have lightning fast autofocus (Ultrasonic line), which took Nikon more than a decade to catch up to. Same with exposure zones and metering accuracy combined with extremely fast drives - this basically meant that Canon took over sports photography in the mid 90s.
- stan_rogers 8y ago
  Yessir. They were first to break compatibility, immediately (ish) after Minolta did it.
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    True and his transgression was an easy one to make because most people will say "Mi..who?" They merged with Konica sometime in the early 2000s and exited the camera market. Minolta was never considered more than a prosumer camera maker, it's cameras lacked many essential features that professional photographers demanded in their SLRs.
    - foobar1962 8y ago
      Sony bought part of the Minolta/ Konica camera business. Minolta had an AF slr very early in the game iirc. They weren’t pro mainly because they didn’t have an extensive range of lenses ands accessories, and the lenses were mainly slow zooms.
      - stan_rogers 8y ago
        They actually had a pretty extensive range of lenses and accessories (bulk film backs, drives and grips, etc.), and had those cool white f/2.8 zooms and teles before Canon did. Some of those lenses, like the 24mm VFC (variable field curvature), were unique to the line and allowed a photographer to pull off shots that wouldn't be practical again until digital composition (focus stacking, etc.) came along. They also had a decent TTL flash system way ahead of the game - you could pull a full-on Joe McNally job, but you needed to do it cabled. Their real problem was dropping into and out of the pro market at irregular intervals. Every time the put together a killer, truly professional-level body system, the market reaction was, "yeah, I don't want to invest in a system that's going to be orphaned next week," which led to it being orphaned the next week. I'd already moved on to medium and large format when the Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha hit, but it was still maddening to see my old favourite shooting themselves in the foot over and over again.

jccalhoun 8y ago

"The model in question is the EOS-1V, which, incidentally, the company actually stopped making a full eight years ago. Since it has simply been selling out the rest of its stock, which, it seems, has finally depleted." That says a lot about how few they have been selling.

alex_duf 8y ago
or how big their stock was?
ekianjo 8y ago
> That says a lot about how few they have been selling. Well, Canon has done zero marketing for this model and focused solely on digital cameras, so I would even wager nobody knew it was still being sold!
wiredfool 8y ago
I think that's pretty standard for a lot of camera equipment. They'll do a run of one lens, and then a run of another, rather than 10 of this and 10 of that.
- msbarnett 8y ago
  I dunno about other companies, but Canon does "cellular" manufacturing rather than having huge lines all dedicated to just one thing. Each cell is 5-or-6 small reconfigurable stations manned by a couple of people, who build a body or lens from start to finish, rapidly re-taskable to different lenses or bodies on the fly. Hundreds of cells on a manufacturing floor.
ethagknight 8y ago
I don’t know that you can read between those lines, manufacturing one unit might cost nearly the same as manufacturing a million units, so might as well stock up despite waning sales based on where you think the obsolescence tail wraps up. For a momentous event like their last film camera sale, today may well have been their target date from 8 years back. I have a cousin that works in Arrow Electronics’ obsolescence division, where they buy out final production lots in aging technologies (basically keep production lines going a few more months or years) with the intent to supply users of obsolete but operational systems with a fresh supply of parts and service. Lots of government and military equipment. lucrative business and there is an art to projecting future demand of obsolete tech. Not saying that this was Canon’s intent as well, but it was eye opening hearing him talk about his business.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

acomjean 8y ago

As someone who shot and developed a lot of film (I was a photo editor at a daily college paper..) I won’t miss it. Though printing black and white pictures was kinda fun, they often had dust and getting the exporsure and contrast right was tedious. I don’t miss film. Though there were a lot less pictures taken and shared before everyone had a camera on their phone. A different time in a lot of ways.

yesimahuman 8y ago
I think film is awesome, provided you have the right process and you actually enjoy that process (or you are fine spending $20/roll to have a lab develop and scan for you). Certainly has been going through a hipster revival of sorts lately.
- gringoDan 8y ago
  I agree that there’s something magical about film cameras. I’m 25 years old now, so I’m probably one of the last people to ever experience working in a darkroom during photography class. There is a sense of anticipation and discovery in having a limited number of photos on a roll of film and not knowing how they’ll turn out until you develop them yourself. Undoubtedly, the photos that you thought would be incredible turn out to be duds, but you’ll also find a gem or two in shots that you thought would be mediocre. In an age of infinite options, limitless data, and constant connectivity, I’m drawn more and more to these examples of deliberate limitation / non-scalable craftsmanship.
- ghaff 8y ago
  B&W printing in particular has a certain hands-on craftwork aspect to it that you don't really get with digital in the same way. (Working on a computer with Photoshop or Lightroom isn't really the same thing although it takes an equal amount of skill.) That said, I never really got into multi-hour printing sessions to get a print just perfect. I always came more from the newspaper than the fine art mindset. So it's one of those things that leads me to reminisce about how that was fun without any real desire to ever do it again.
ghaff 8y ago

sofaofthedamned 8y ago

I don't understand why Google / MS / Amazon etc don't buy either of Nikon or Canon? It'd give them credibility and they'd immediately improve the DSLRs. Imagine a decent Nikon with the Google Photos processing? Decent wifi? Regular updates?

jonknee 8y ago
Google / MS / Amazon don't need any credibility and Nikon and Canon already have it? It's a niche business without a ton of growth potential? Google already got into the pro photo market by buying Nik and decided it was not worth the effort. https://petapixel.com/2017/05/30/google-abandons-nik-collection-popular-photo-editing-software/ https://petapixel.com/2017/05/30/google-abandons-nik-collect...
fetus8 8y ago
What credibility are Nikon or Canon missing? Both companies have a level of brand recognition unrivaled in the Photography world...? Only in recent years has Sony and maybe Fujifilm developed more respect due to some of their advancements where Nikon and Canon have lacked. Their DSLR's are market leaders still. Again, only in recent years have Mirrorless cameras have started to catch up with the DSLRs Nikon and Canon have been releasing. Based on current rumors, both Canon and Nikon are supposedly working on their first serious Mirrorless cameras to compete with the likes of Sony's A7 series... EDIT: Personally, I would avoid any camera that had Google integration built in. Part of the reason I still carry around a DSLR today is because I like knowing that the photos on my camera, and then stored on a local HDD at my house. I don't think I'm alone in this thought either. Computational Photography is cool and all, but I don't need to provide all my photos into a server farm to be analyzed.
- sofaofthedamned 8y ago
  Good points, but the market is dying for DSLRs. I wince each time I use mine for the terrible wifi capability, the awful OS, etc. Why can't it be modernised? Because Canon and Nikon won't do it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

topbagsvk 8y ago

Only in recent years have Mirrorless cameras have started to catch up with the DSLRs Nikon and Canon have been releasing. http://www.handbagsmini.com/hermes/handmade-bags-collection.html http://www.handbagsmini.com/hermes/handmade-bags-collection....

mauvehaus 8y ago

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 appear. Plus there's something about the smell of a darkroom. The hot lamps of the enlargers create a smell that mixes with the smell of the fixer and the stop bath that's unmistakable. Would I want to do any of this if I were shooting weddings? Definitely not. If I'm taking my camera for a walk and want to see what I've captured, absolutely! The other thing that's a damned shame is the way the manufacturing has changed. I've long been a Pentax man, and the old Super-Takumar and Super-Multi-Coated (as distinct from the later SMC) lenses are a pleasure to use[0]. Everything about the way they fall to hand is perfect, and the machining is immaculate. The focus ring is scalloped and knurled, and it's metal. They must have cost a fortune to make. The SMC, K, M, and I'd assume the A series lenses have a lot more plastic on the outside of the lenses, but the feel of the focusing helix is still beyond reproach. Modern lenses, by comparison, are made so that they can be driven by the autofocus mechanisms, and the feel of the ring in manual mode is terrible. That isn't to say that the modern lenses are optically worse; I'm sure the situation is quite the opposite. Nonetheless, something has been lost. Again all of this is moot for most people looking for the most productivity out of their tools, or for the people shooting casually. The small group of people in the middle, they'll miss it. Honestly, it's like CD (or any other digital medium) vs records. Records are quantitatively worse by any measure, but for the sheer pleasure of the experience, they can't be matched. If I want to sit down and actually listen to music, part of the enjoyment is the smell of the record and its sleeve, and the tangible process of putting the needle on the record. [0] Super Takumar and SMC Takumars here: http://blog.prairierimimages.com/2011/08/old-glass-asahipentax-smc-super-takumar.html http://blog.prairierimimages.com/2011/08/old-glass-asahipent... The Super-Multi-Coated Takumars are essentially identical from the outside.

hamitron 8y ago
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.

_ph_ 8y ago

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.

fetus8 8y ago
Thankfully Fuji's Instax line is alive and kicking, with their instant film readily available.
- kakwa_ 8y ago
  RIP 35mm Fujifilm Neopan. The 1600 was a great high ASA film.
  - haxxorfreak 8y ago
    So sad that they’re discontinuing Neopan ACROS 100 this fall too. It’s still my favourite “modern” emulsion as it has a beautiful tone curve and amazing dynamic range if developed properly.
carbolite103 8y ago
As far as 35mm systems it's pretty much just Leica and Nikon at the moment, though I would imagine that Nikon is close to discontinuing their F6 flagship soon. Thankfully many 35mm cameras from the 70s and 80s are engineering masterpieces that will likely keep functioning well into the second half of this century. I just hope that companies will continue making film stocks for them.
- msbarnett 8y ago
  Nikon stopped building the F6 a number of years ago. They're just selling through old stock at this point.

jacquesm 8y ago

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 market for digital don't count out Sony.

vanderZwan 8y ago
I recall reading a really interesting article on how Sony is doing something similar to what Canon did to overtake Nikon back in the day. Perhaps I even found the article through HN.
geerlingguy 8y ago
> 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).
- petepete 8y ago
  > 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) I'm not sure this has been true since the Sony α9. Its autofocusing abilities are amazing, and that's coming from me - a Nikon fan and D500 owner. If I shot people rather than wildlife, I'd probably switch for the eye-AF alone.

mvexel 8y ago

I'm seriously curious how they were able to sell that last inventory. Folks buying them for nostalgic reasons? Was there a real market left for top of the line film SLRs that wasn't served by the used camera market? You can get really good used ones for not very much money. As a film shooter for 20+ years, I decided to break out my old Nikon FA and shoot a roll of film today to mark the occasion. (I still keep some in the fridge, Velvia 50 Daylight.) I wonder if the last place that would still develop slide film around here last time I needed film developed still does it. If they still take film, they probably ship it some place to get it developed rather than do it in-house like they used to.

chuckkir 8y ago

I was talking to a friend who recently got into 35mm film cameras. He develops the color film himself, but then immediately scans it in and uses digital tools to work on the images. I left a bit confused; what is he gaining by using film as the medium?

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
One of the popular trends right now is scanning a film picture or a piece of physical artwork and then adding things with digital means. I'm not sure that the film adds anything whatsoever - nor the physical artwork since digital is pretty good at mimicking all of it. I think it is all about the process and the skillset a person is showing off. In his case, he winds up with an image that has a lot of steps, has a lot of room for error (film processing), and not many people can repeat his exact process. People pay for this sort of thing as much as they pay for a clever gimmick.
- ghaff 8y ago
  I tried to muck around with color film processing once upon a time but I found it to be a PITA exacting process that was pretty much straight follow the recipe. I totally get trying out B&W processing and printing for the sake of the experience even if I have no personal interest in trying it again. But color doesn't have any appeal whatsoever.
wepple 8y ago
Film has a particular look and feel to it that I’ve absolutely never seen replicated in digital. I’m confident that one day it probably will be; maybe ML will be up to the task where filters and transforms just can’t do the right job? Besides that, the process of taking photographs is surprisingly different. You don’t spray and pray - a shutter costs you more than a dollar so you spend more time looking, and learn to hunt with your eyes more. It’s impossible to check your photos on the LCD, so you just get on with photography, and have an element of suspense to find out what you captured. Also, no batteries to go flat. There’s also a forced creativity when working with basic controls like aperture and shutter speed, instead of hundreds of different settings and knobs to get caught up in. Of course, if I were a profession photographer these would in no way make up for the downsides, so hand me that 5d/d600/M-P, but they’re reasons you may still shoot film and translate to digital to share/store.

ccnafr 8y ago

Original source: https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/canon-is-now-out-of-the-film-camera-business-after-80-years/ https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/canon-is-now-out-of-the-fil... I'm so tired of the TechCrunch blog spam on this site. They've literally stolen another site's news story and HN mods never replace their links with the original source of the article. Why is this site always given a pass for content theft?

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
You can always email hn@ycombinator.com to reach the mods with suggestions like URL changes. They usually respond pretty quick.
ArlenBales 8y ago
TechCrunch gives YCombinator a lot of publicity, for example pieces about its demo days. Of course there's a business relationship of sorts at play here.
ginger2016 8y ago
What makes petapixel original source in this case ? Techcruch is reporting an official Cannon announcement not breaking an exclusive story.
- GuiA 8y ago
  From the first paragraph of the article: The news was spotted by PetaPixel on the camera giant’s Japanese support forum.
  - ccnafr 8y ago
    Breaking a story should be rewarded. Ok, I'll admit it. I hate sites like TechCrunch or The Verge that simply take reports from other news sites, reword them, and then pass them as their own. It disturbs me to learn that HN favors TechCrunch like this.
    - 8y ago

mathewsanders 8y ago

When I was 16 (1997) a photographer friend of my parents gave me his old Canon AE-1 (I think released in 1980 or 81) it’s shutter wasn’t working and I took it into the local Canon center where they fixed the shutter, replaced light seal on film door, and even gave me a lens cap for something like NZD$50. Amazing that companies used to build such sturdy products that they could be cheaply fixed 15+ years after they were sold... Also sort of amazing is that Canon even had a physical presence that as a consumer I could visit a physical offices and drop of a product in person to be fixed!

rangibaby 8y ago
> Amazing that companies used to build such sturdy products that they could be cheaply fixed 15+ years after they were sold... The award for most durable SLR has to go to the Pentax Spotmatic. The first ones were released in 1964, and they are seemingly indestructible. Even the exposure meter is a future-proof design; it was designed for mercury (1.35V) batteries but the circuit was designed in a way that modern LR44 (1.5V) cells "just work"! Nikon lenses from the same era generally need a CLA because the grease used on their focusing helicoids gums up over the years and makes focusing feel dry, bumpy, and just plain nasty. I have come across some Super Takumar (Pentax) examples that are moldy enough that they would probably grow mushrooms if you left them outside soon the shady side of a tree, but the focusing feel is always smooth and perfect. The only lens I have that feels better is a Voigtlander and it cost $500 vs $10 for an ugly but usable Super Takumar lens.
- lb1lf 8y ago
  -The Pentax Spotmatic is wonderful (I used my father's Spotmatic for years until I had saved enough to get my own SLR - my teenage rebellion was buying into the F system rather than Pentax... :)) I'd argue that the Nikon FM2 is just about as indestructible, though - but I won't argue about the lenses; I have enough old Nikkor optics to know better!
  - rangibaby 8y ago
    Ohhh yeah! I don't have an FM but do have an FE and it is probably my favorite camera full stop. It's just the right amount of "camera", and is never annoying or frustrating to use, in either automatic or manual modes. Agreed 100% on the indestructibility - whoever used mine before I got it dented and brassed up good. The camera doesn't care. The focusing screen is a joy and better than any DSLR. It's telling that the big and bright finder is a selling point of the D850. If you still use your FM2 I would suggest getting a K3 screen. Nikon still sell them new!