11 ms·

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

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