End of times!

The end of an era for photography as Canon kills off its last film camera | Daily Mail Online

Here's part of an early run of the EOS film cameras. Most of these cost less on eBay than a fair to middling pizza.

 

 

My favorites (not shown here) were the EOS 3 and the EOS 1.

 

Newer EF lenses will work fine with these, so get a couple and

"yer in "analog" mode agin'

Edited June 1, 2018 by JDMvW

Can still get Leicas...well, not the M7...and the Nikon F6

I didn't realize that Canon still made a film camera.

 

The unfortunate reality is that even though many indications are that film is seeing a(small) renaissance, there's a huge glut of used cameras out there, and it's hard to make a case to buy a new one. I don't know how much the EOS 1V was new, but from some quick searching it looks like they run in the $500-800 range used. Since Canon will still service them, you could buy one and have it brought back to like new condition for probably less than a new one was.

 

I've wondered for a while how many F6s Nikon makes. I would love to buy a new one(I've actually never bought a new film camera) but am afraid my chance to do that may pass soon. The F6 is in a bit of a different market position than the 1V-the 1V was a hold-out from the days where PJs and other folks needed fast AF and motor drives in their cameras. The F6 came along with the realization that it would probably never sell in significant volumes but Nikon threw every trick in the book at it to make the most advanced film camera they've ever made. There again, though, when I eventually get one it would be nice to get a new one, but it's hard to justify $2600 when nice used ones are half that. Nikon also still services the F5 if you are one who needs a full-blown speed demon 35mm camera.

I didn't realize that Canon still made a film camera.

 

If you read the article, you will find out that Canon did not "still make a film camera." Production stopped eight years ago.

Ben as far as I know B&H and some others have new old stock F6 bodies sitting on the shelf, about $1000 last time I looked. I recall buying my first F4S, when it was current, for $2200 so $2600 for a new F6 doesn't look all that bad, to me anyway. Not that I will buy one, I've never actually seen an F6. F5 on the other hand....

 

Rick H.

If you read the article, you will find out that Canon did not "still make a film camera." Production stopped eight years ago.

 

Sometimes(quite often) I'm guilty of rambling around without really making my point.

 

I should have said "catalogued" and that's kind of what I was getting at with the F6. I wonder if Nikon still actually MAKES them. Nikon USA and the big dealers persistently list the US market version as "out of stock"-I wonder if Nikon USA only gets US market models on-demand from Japan.

I didn't realize that Canon still made a film camera.

 

The unfortunate reality is that even though many indications are that film is seeing a(small) renaissance, there's a huge glut of used cameras out there, and it's hard to make a case to buy a new one. I don't know how much the EOS 1V was new, but from some quick searching it looks like they run in the $500-800 range used. Since Canon will still service them, you could buy one and have it brought back to like new condition for probably less than a new one was.

 

I've wondered for a while how many F6s Nikon makes. I would love to buy a new one(I've actually never bought a new film camera) but am afraid my chance to do that may pass soon. The F6 is in a bit of a different market position than the 1V-the 1V was a hold-out from the days where PJs and other folks needed fast AF and motor drives in their cameras. The F6 came along with the realization that it would probably never sell in significant volumes but Nikon threw every trick in the book at it to make the most advanced film camera they've ever made. There again, though, when I eventually get one it would be nice to get a new one, but it's hard to justify $2600 when nice used ones are half that. Nikon also still services the F5 if you are one who needs a full-blown speed demon 35mm camera.

 

I think it's about $2000 new. I wonder the discontinuation of the EOS-1V would make used price goes up or down. The discontinuation of the F5 made used price went down drastically from about $1000 to $500 almost overnight.

I suspect that a high percentage of the "still-available-new" film cameras of most marques (not including hand-assembled 'boutique' cameras) were last assembled around 2004 -2005. It is also the case that some expensive lenses are warehoused against future sales and are only produced periodically. A large store of "Mark I" lenses can delay the introduction of "Mark II"

were last assembled around 2004 -2005

Exactly!

They had been selling out the last bodies out of the stock (at high prices).

Now I see all those previously gorgeous (now second-hand) cameras are sold for very little money! I had a dream of Cantax S2, FM-3A..... those were the days.... :oops:

gorgeous cameras

Which brings to mind that age old philosophical question, much like the one about the sound of trees falling on deaf ears in a forest ...

 

Do gorgeous cameras take gorgeous pictures? :rolleyes:

Which brings to mind that age old philosophical question, much like the one about the sound of trees falling on deaf ears in a forest ...

 

Do gorgeous cameras take gorgeous pictures? :rolleyes:

 

With all due respect, that's not how the "age old question was asked". Rather, it went "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". The actual answer is no, and is explained by the definition of what sound is in the first place. It takes 3 things to make sound, a source (a tree falling to the ground in this case) a medium (something to carry the resulting vibrations, the atmosphere in this case), and lastly, a detector (human, or other ears, a recording device, anything to decipher the resulting vibrations). If ANY of those 3 things are absent, then there is no sound produced. Picture that. ;o)

Carl, with all due respect, mine was a tongue-in-cheek remark and I intentionally reappropriated the original wording. Maybe much too “clever” for my own good! I assumed everyone would know the old adage well enough to realize I was intentionally taking liberties with it. By the way, the answer to the original philosophical question would be best addressed in the philosophy forum here, if it could be somehow related to photography. But my answer would not be “no” and I follow some well-respected thinkers in that regard who recognize the question as metaphysical trickery unworthy of much consideration. That was, in part, my original point. :cool:

Carl, with all due respect, mine was a tongue-in-cheek remark and I intentionally reappropriated the original wording. Maybe much too “clever” for my own good! I assumed everyone would know the old adage well enough to realize I was intentionally taking liberties with it. By the way, the answer to the original philosophical question would be best addressed in the philosophy forum here, if it could be somehow related to photography. But my answer would not be “no” and I follow some well-respected thinkers in that regard who recognize the question as metaphysical trickery unworthy of much consideration. That was, in part, my original point. :cool:

 

 

My apologies for the lack of "photo" related content, but I see this old canard quite frequently, thus I responded. I was following my training in SONAR (Sound Navigation And Raging) by the US Navy, no trickery involved. My point being that it's common to see people confuse the metaphysical with hard science. WRT, tongue in cheek evidently you missed the wink at the end of my post.

 

I'll leave you to it.

evidently you missed the wink

I did miss it. Not sure why it came through on my software as three symbols rather than an actual emoji, which made it easy to miss.

 

By the way, the question didn't originate as and still doesn't solely operate as a question of hard science. It originated as a philosophical/metaphysical question to begin with and one thing that's often important in addressing questions is to consider the context in which they're asked. It's been used as a metaphor for debating idealism and realism, whether there is reality outside of human experience. I never thought the question to be about sound per se.

 

Here's a paragraph from a longer article about the question that might give some pause, where Einstein rephrases the question. Einstein recognizes and expands the originally-intended metaphysical spirit of the question about trees falling in forests.

 

Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that 'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.' To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture—one that cannot be either proved or disproved.

 

Infallible conjecture ... that's the point!

If light is emitted at point A and travels to a photographer with a discontinued camera at point C does it cease to exist as it travels unobserved by point B between A and C to the photographer with a discontinued camera?

Red pill or Blue?

If you take enough of the red, you won’t need the blue.....

;)

...

Are you still a moderator? I should think your unethical behavior toward members would disqualify you from that position. But, alas, this is PN.

Do gorgeous cameras take gorgeous pictures?

If we say about top-class discontinues cameras, they did, they used to, but now those cameras do not anymore cause most pros just have in on the shelf or sold them. If we say in general, then yes: better equipment is often in the hands of pros', so gorgeous cameras take better pictures than cheapo entry level cameras. Say take the year 1996 - Nikon F4 or Contax S2 or Pentax 645 + top grade lenses took better pictures than EOS 500 + 28-80 or F501 or Smena-2..

If we say about top-class discontinues cameras, they did, they used to, but now those cameras do not anymore cause most pros just have in on the shelf or sold them. If we say in general, then yes: better equipment is often in the hands of pros', so gorgeous cameras take better pictures than cheapo entry level cameras. Say take the year 1996 - Nikon F4 or Contax S2 or Pentax 645 + top grade lenses took better pictures than EOS 500 + 28-80 or F501 or Smena-2..

I find this sad but more and more true of the majority PN sensibility. One reason I'm glad to be in the minority.

 

Even Ansel Adams, a technical perfectionist with a handsome camera, recognized the vacuousness of giving too much credit to cameras for taking pictures.

The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.

 

Edward Steichen, who used a cheap Kodak borrowed from a tourist in Greece to take his famous picture of Isadora Duncan at the Parthenon, might quarrel with you. As would Ryan McGinley, Lucas Samaris, Andy Warhol, and Robert Mapplethorpe, all of whom used Polaroids because they were experimenters and trailblazers more than they were gear snobs, if they were that at all.

 

Steinway pianos sound great and have much richer tones and a more reactive touch than many other brands. But they don't make beautiful music. Great pianists do. I've heard at least one world-famous pianist play Mozart on an out-of-tune New Orleans style upright piano at a house party. Now THAT was beautiful music!

Edited November 11, 2018 by The Shadow

One reason I'm glad to be in the minority.

I see your point of view and often I agree and support this but I used to read the blogs of Rodney Smith. He was a perfectionist but (and that is why) used top class cameras - Hasselblad 500 and Leica (he did not use Canon EOS 500 + kit zoom, did he?).

Moreover, he was a fetishist of cameras which is clearly seen in the following blog:

 

To Use or Not to Use, That is the Question.

 

As for me, I don't splash out, don't splurge on state-of-the art equipment but I use limited Pentax lens which is fine (Pentax is called poor man's Leica).

Andy Warhol

He was a bohemian and if he really did any photography it (and his art) was hyped.

Steinway pianos sound great and have much richer tones and a more reactive touch than many other brands. But they don't make beautiful music. Great pianists do. I've heard at least one world-famous pianist play Mozart on an out-of-tune New Orleans style upright piano at a house party. Now THAT was beautiful music!

I studied at musical school being a child and than a teen. I can play the piano. Better pianos produce better sound. And the best pianists of the world (say, our Matsuev) don't play crappy instruments at all. Good photography = good photographer, but still, I speak about statistics.

So lenses, cameras are importrant.

And if I had a chance to use top Leica glass or even top Zeiss glass or MF Pentax 645Z camera or something alike regularly, my photography would be technically better.

Edited November 11, 2018 by ruslan

my photography would be technically better.

Very important addition you made here, when you say TECHNICALLY better. I agree.

 

A good camera or good piano will enhance gorgeous photos and music. It is a tool, an aid. The technical quality has a better chance of being better if the user uses it well. But the sensibility of the photo or the interpretation of the music, the composition, the storytelling of the picture, the perspective, the level of intimacy, the sense of timing, the intelligence of the photo and its ability to pique the imagination are up to the photographer who uses that camera. I played piano as well and preferred playing on a Steinway baby grand but always knew who was responsible for the music (if not the quality of sound) that came out of it. Music and sound are two different, though related, things. So are photography and sharpness, photography and bokeh, photography and Nikon.

 

What I want out of photography doesn’t happen because I’ve got good glass (a term I abhor), can point my camera at a bird or a mountain or someone’s head or down a long city street, hold my camera still and come up with a proper exposure, though I suspect a lot of people who think of themselves as good photographers do no more than perform those mundane tasks. My idea of good photography emanates from another place and owes its deeper beauty to imagination, timing, skill, thought, sensitivity, visual awareness and acuteness, the freedom of the shooter’s expressiveness, and the ability to draw out the interest of the scene or subject the camera’s pointing at. Gorgeous birds, mountains, or faces don’t make gorgeous photos either. It’s just as easy, probably easier, to make a bad photo of a beautiful landscape as a good one. And it’s just as easy to make a bad photo with expensive gear as a good one. That’s proven over and over again as we flip through the Internet.

Edited November 11, 2018 by The Shadow