The end is near for 35mm? Or is it? When is the end?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by j, Sep 30, 2006.

  1. j

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:02:03 GMT, "Dennis Pogson"
    I have several friends with those,and they use them everywhere at
    first. Probably because they are a new toy.
    But, after the newness wears out, they stop using them everywhere, and
    use them when going to new places, or finding places (like
    restaurants).
    Do you get to test them out? :)
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 2, 2006
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. j

    Bill Funk Guest

    Why would MF and LF make a "resurgence"? They've been here, for anyone
    who wants them. Is digital going to make MF and LF *more* in demand?
    Anyone who thinks that digital is somehow making 35mm film obsolete
    will go to MF or LF for what reason?

    And, vinyl is only making a comeback because it's easier to DJ with
    it, not because people are 'discovering' it to be better than digital.
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 2, 2006
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. j

    Prometheus Guest

    I am not sure that the larger formats will make a resurgence since
    unlike CD v. vinyl the formats larger than MF have not been
    significantly supplanted by digital. I agree that 35mm is all but dead,
    I expect that some company will continue to produce a limited range of
    emulsions for many years to come, just as they do with some of the other
    discontinued sizes.
     
    Prometheus, Oct 2, 2006
    #63
  4. Greed. If you are greedy for more pixels, 6x7 with a Nikon 9000 or 4x5 with
    an Epson V750 will provide it. Now. You don't have to wait for another four
    years. I went 645 + Nikon 8000 and got four years of way better images than
    6MP dSLRs can even dream of.
    Exactly. Vinyl is really terrible if you actually play your records, because
    the highs go away and get replaced by noise after three playings.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 2, 2006
    #64
  5. j

    Peter Irwin Guest

    That's either a gross exaggeration or a carefully selected
    pathological case. There is or was a genuine problem. Back
    when the CD4 discs with 4 channel information encoded in
    the ultrasonic range were developed in the early-mid 1970s,
    it was discovered that the elliptical styli then in near
    universal use in good equipment would wear out the ultrasonic
    carrier in a few playings. In response to this, phono styli
    with a hyper-elliptical profile were developed. CD-4 discs
    died due to a lack of any significant sustained interest
    in multichannel audio, but the new stylus profiles caught
    on and any problem with high frequencies wearing away
    was dramatically reduced by their use.

    I'm not a LP superiority guy, but I have a suspicious mind.
    I wouldn't be the least surprised if you read an article
    "proving" how bad this problem is on the LP in which the
    writers chose to use a Denon cartridge with a spherical
    stylus tip in order to choose a pathological example
    while giving the illusion of fairness. (If they were
    trying to show how small the problem could be then they
    would have picked the Shure V-15MR; if they picked something
    with a spherical stylus and a high tracking force then they
    picked a bad example on purpose.)

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Oct 2, 2006
    #65
  6. j

    George Kerby Guest

    I was in a high-end Audio store the other day and the saleman put on a
    scratchy-looking lp. He told me not to laugh, but listen. It was one of the
    most vibrant and filling recordings that I have ever heard. Better than
    anything CD, cassette, etc. The only problem was that the turntable was
    $12.5K and the stylus/cartridge was almost 2 grand. Just goes to show you
    that if you pay enough for something, maybe, just maybe, it might work
    correctly. I found that to be true in dishwashers. Me, I'm listening to my
    iPod...
     
    George Kerby, Oct 2, 2006
    #66
  7. j

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Now *that* is funny!

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Oct 3, 2006
    #67
  8. j

    Paul J Gans Guest

    I agree. I only used Kodachrome 25 during those years.

    That's sad, but I understand it. B&W was, for me, a totally
    different form than color. Composition and balance was
    very different. Sad that it is difficult in digital to do
    good B&W.

    Same here. Cost is too high. And once most of the labs
    close down it will be very hard to get images developed.

    I've still got some 8mm film around here somewhere... ;-)

    Most folks show their digital images on a computer screen.
    A common modern screen is 1280x1024 = 1.3 megapixels. And
    the pixel pitch these days is typically 100/inch or about
    40/mm.

    Digital projectors typically don't even have that many
    pixels.

    So really, who needs tons of megapixels? I'm being serious
    here. Pixels only matter if you print. There even an
    8x10 at 300 dpi is only about 7 megadots.

    Thus I do not understand the average user who is ga-ga over
    megapixels.

    By the way, would you believe that I used to design and
    build valve (tube, to us USians) amplifiers. They seemed
    real. Today's equipment, equally good if not perhaps
    better, doesn't.

    Map reading.

    Yes you should!

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Oct 3, 2006
    #68
  9. j

    ASAAR Guest

    I used to enjoy listening to a friend's hi-fi (mono) system,
    because the exposed power tubes in his Bogen amp produced a really
    nice violet glow. :)
     
    ASAAR, Oct 3, 2006
    #69
  10. j

    nailer Guest

    Been to Photokina last week.
    Sad, all fun is gone. My feeling - the industry is going down.
    Even Photokina is shrinking. That was my seventh in 28 years. Image
    taking, corrections, printing have changed significantly. Ag photo
    will stay for a while, mostly due to dedicated enthusiasts. For me it
    was cultural shock.
     
    nailer, Oct 3, 2006
    #70
  11. Well, if we really are witnessing "the end of 35mm", anything over $20 for a
    doorstop would be ridiculous, but Nikon and other have been clever, their
    older lenses can be used on their latest DSLRs. so these lenses command high
    prices. (as do their 35mm "classic cameras")
    The more models or "upgrades" per annum they churn out, the greater the
    depreciation.
    Already the Nikon D50 can be picked up half-price after about 18 months
    since launch. A mint 1980's F3 will set you back $400+. A 1950's Leica 3G
    in mint condition will fetch $1500 or more.

    I know we live in a throwaway society, governed by the marketeers, but why
    should we slavishly follow their dictats?

    Dennis.
     
    Dennis Pogson, Oct 3, 2006
    #71
  12. Because you forgot to amortize the cost of the film; if you actually use
    your cameras to take pictures, film runs into serious money quite quickly
    (and if you cut corners on film prices, the quality of your images is
    nowhere near even P&S digital).

    Look at it this way: every time you take, say, 100 frames with your dSLR,
    you got back the film + processing cost of at least one roll of film
    (digital users waste more frames than film users). Call that US$10. The D50
    shutter is guaranteed for what, 50,000 actuations? Assume you use 10,000 of
    those. That's US$1000 bucks in film costs you saved.

    Digital cameras are basically free, _as long as you use them_. If you don't
    use them, you're throwing away money. But they have no value as jewelry or
    investment.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 3, 2006
    #72
  13. You are comparing apples to oranges. An F3 was once Nikon's top professional
    camera. A D50 is just an entry level camera. If you want to compare the D50,
    compare it to an F50 or compare the F3 to a D2X.

    Obviously, an F3 is a classic, so a mint one will cost you (I think $400 is a
    bit on the low side for a mint 25 year old camera).

    About a year ago I bought an F4. It was cheap enough, and people said
    that the F4 is the best Nikon camera for manual focus.

    They are right. The F3 is now sort of worthless to me. The F4 is so much
    better.

    It is the same thing with digital. Nikon D1 cameras are still going strong.
    But few people want to have them because the resolution is limited and the
    noise levels are not acceptable at anything other than ISO 200.

    If the D2X has the same build quality as the D1, then a D2X is likely to
    last for 10 years or more. In that time, Nikon has probably created something
    much better than the D2X.
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 3, 2006
    #73
  14. j

    Scott W Guest

    30 megapixels, you are kidding right?
    35mm film does not even come close to 30 MP.

    The true is that 8MP are more then enough to kill off 35mm film, and in
    case you have
    not noticed it is doing just this.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Oct 3, 2006
    #74
  15. j

    Bill Funk Guest

    Obviously, we don't need to. That many do this doesn't mean we must do
    it.
    But that has no bearing on why the "classics" would become in vogue;
    instead, we can (and probably should) stick with what we have until it
    no longer works or fits our needs. There's no need to give up what we
    have to retreat into the past to resurrect "classics".
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 3, 2006
    #75
  16. j

    Bill Funk Guest

    True. But why then is not MF growing by leaps and bounds?
    While I'm certain MF is far better than 35mm or the current crop of
    DSLRs, even the better ones, I haven't seen much growth there.
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 3, 2006
    #76
  17. j

    Scott W Guest

    Very few people care about good sharp prints larger then 8 x 12, thus
    the popularity of 35mm film for so many years.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Oct 3, 2006
    #77
  18. j

    Bill Funk Guest

    That's the obvious answer.
    I was hoping Dave would give his answer.
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 3, 2006
    #78
  19. I can't imagine anyone buying a new film camera. There must be enough
    used cameras around at the moment to provide a diehard film user with an
    almost endless supply of spare parts.
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 3, 2006
    #79
  20. Indeed ... that is how I got my F100 (which I have been using much more than
    my D70).
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Oct 3, 2006
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.