Another new camera - the Reflex SLR.

Sounds like it is M42 mount as well (from reading the article, haven't read the kickstarter yet). So plenty of lens options at affordable prices.
 
FishyFish said:
I don't think the Kickstarter has launched yet, so we should see more details later this month. I hope it's worthwhile and that the product is viable in the market - it'll be great to have some new, factory fresh 35mm film cameras in production (alongside the compact that JCH are working on)
Click to expand...

not sure why anyone would want an inferior camera rather than heritage manual one.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
not sure why anyone would want an inferior camera rather than heritage manual one.
Click to expand...

Well, hopefully it won't be inferior, but it will also come with the benefit of being brand new with a warranty and, presumably, supplies of parts and servicing etc in the event anything goes wrong.

Heritage cameras can be great, but they aren't getting any younger and there's a finite supply of them, so a new camera being brought to market is a good thing IMO.
 
Best of luck to them, especially as the Yashica just turned out to be a digital toy cameras with some faux-analogue gimmicks. When was the last manual 35mm SLR to be launched, incidentally? It's not really 22 years - the Voigtlander Bessaflex (at least) is more recent than that.
 
FishyFish said:
Well, hopefully it won't be inferior, but it will also come with the benefit of being brand new with a warranty and, presumably, supplies of parts and servicing etc in the event anything goes wrong.

Heritage cameras can be great, but they aren't getting any younger and there's a finite supply of them, so a new camera being brought to market is a good thing IMO.
Click to expand...


I do not share your confidence that a newcomer can achieve the quality of manufacturing or design standards, even up to the level of Chinese cameras of 30 years ago.
 
lets hope it's doesn't turn out to be as misguided as the new Yashica!

Having to buy 'digiFilm' extras for different ISOs and effects, they've just created physical 'in-app purchases', beyond me!
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not share your confidence that a newcomer can achieve the quality of manufacturing or design standards, even up to the level of Chinese cameras of 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

It's early days, I think it's fair to at least give them the chance to prove themselves. If it turns out to be a poor, or poorly considered product, then it'll fail of its own accord.

The fact remains that, if new film cameras don't get made, then film photography is on an inevitable decline into obsolescence, because eventually there won't be enough working cameras to support the film and processing industry and they'll end production. After that, it'll be down to dwindling supplies of expired products or specialist processes.
 
FishyFish said:
It's early days, I think it's fair to at least give them the chance to prove themselves. If it turns out to be a poor, or poorly considered product, then it'll fail of its own accord.

The fact remains that, if new film cameras don't get made, then film photography is on an inevitable decline into obsolescence, because eventually there won't be enough working cameras to support the film and processing industry and they'll end production. After that, it'll be down to dwindling supplies of expired products or specialist processes.
Click to expand...


My own thoughts are that all but large format film photography is doomed. if only for a couple of reasons.
Sheet film and glass plates can be made on a craft basis., in small batches and even to order.
Large format cameras last for generations are easy to repair and construct.

There are sufficient high quality large format lenses in the world to more than satisfy the market for a century or two.
Such lenses can also be repolished and coated with a minimum of equipment. and at surprisingly low cost, as only spherical surfaces are used.
Large format shutters are extremely basic and can be repaired, and replacement parts constructed as needed,
In many instances roller blind shutter are quite sufficient and easily made.

Large format photography will continue as an art medium and at a craft level, in to the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately 35mm film and roll fill need a considerable manufacturing and supporting base to function at all. from special film base, to backing paper, spools and cassettes.

Large format Photography can easily go back to self coated glass, and use basic chemicals. or use basic pre preprepared liquid emulsions.
People can even use old turntables as coating spinners.
 
I think Terry that you are very wrong. For the past 4 or 5 years film sales have increased steadily, the comparison is with vinyl records where a lot of big bands have not only released digital vrsions but proper, old fashioned pressed vinyl. I think film has a viable and secure future and that any new camera or film is to be supported and encouraged.
 
Andysnap said:
I think Terry that you are very wrong. For the past 4 or 5 years film sales have increased steadily, the comparison is with vinyl records where a lot of big bands have not only released digital vrsions but proper, old fashioned pressed vinyl. I think film has a viable and secure future and that any new camera or film is to be supported and encouraged.
Click to expand...

I won't be around to see it, but I doubt that film cameras will be supported at all by commercial supplies in 30 years time.
It will get to be so costly, that the people most likely to want to use it, like students and artists, will be priced out altogether.
 
If there is a market, like students and artists, there will be a supplier or suppliers.

It will, though, always be more than students and artists, as it is now.
 
I doubt Kodak would be investing in bringing back Ektachrome if they didn't see a market opportunity for it? Take a look at the price of some of the 'high end' 35mm SLR film cameras, I think the days of buying something like a 'Mint -' or 'Exc +' condition Canon EOS-3 for £99 from a second hand camera retailer have gone. I don't think you can just put that down to collector interest, I believe that interest from people who actually want to use the cameras is causing their resale value to rise.

Will these old cameras stand the test of time? Well, my Canon A1 is still going strong and that's pushing 40. I have a few 120 roll film cameras from the 20s, 30s, 50s and 60s, and they all still work and I can currently get them serviced or repaired if I need to. So will they still be working and supported with film in 30 years time? To be honest, on that timescale and the way things seem to be at the moment, I'd probably lay evens on some of them still working and taking photos, against the human race and society still existing as we know it. :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Do you think it's a possibility that with advances in 3D printing and other home fabrication technologies, in 30 years time we'll be able to create 126/APS/Disc films from files downloaded from the internet?
 
Large format film is still being used/required for archival reasons by museums and similar bodies. There are of course still people who ‘roll their own’ using glass plates and metal sheets and various antique processes.
 
Film photography in other than large format would have a chance of surviving as a commercial product if images were not more easily and cheaply made digitaly, and of higher quality.

Most of the film work I see today is of abysmal quality, and poorly processed and printed. This includes most art school efforts.
The interest seems to in just using old heritage equipment and materials rather than using them well. The old timers who know how it should be done and who are still working in the medium, are few and far between, and are literally passing into history.

After 70 years of workig with film and lterally making many thousands of prints. I bless the day digital came along, and have not touched film since the day I bought my first digital camera. Though I have bought several film cameras out of nostalgia, and have the necessary tanks and chemicals to process film.
 
Its got bugger all to do with how good the quality is or how many old timers are left using film equipment, its about enjoyment and choice and more people are choosing to shoot film because it is more engaging than boring digital photography. You may feel different because it was your job and as with most jobs it becomes boring and repetitive with time, for the rest of the us it hasn't gone that way and our output may be abysmal but at least we enjoy it.

Thank you and goodnight. :D
 
I understand where you're coming from to a degree Terry, and I think that most commercial film photography has now been made obsolete by digital, but the enthusiast/ hobbyist / art photography movement is a different matter. The fact that digital is cheaper, easier and of higher quality is not necessarily a consideration where that market is concerned, in much the same way that digital music is cheaper, easier and of better quality than analogue - yet I can walk to my local Sainsbury's today in 2017 and buy vinyl records AND a turntable if I wish. People take pleasure in shooting film - it's not just about ease of results, or sharpness, or resolution or convenience. I can get much sharper photographs from either of my digital cameras than I can from my 35mm film cameras, there's no cost to shooting them, and everything is much easier, and yet I nontheless enjoy the process of shooting film more than digital AND love the look of the results I get.

This new camera doesn't have to be the best camera ever made to be a success - even a basic, but solid performer will make a lot of people happy and, if it succeeds, it shows confidence in the film photography market which could lead to more film cameras being produced.
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
I much prefer to produce my abysmal crap on film rather than on digital.
Click to expand...

:D

For me at my level of competence, if I bought a full frame digi camera for £1000 plus I can't see my sunny weather shots improving but there is always machine gunning and sitting in front of my computer and picking the best one :eek: :D
 
If you were to list all the reasons why film will die off completely in the future, you'd probably find you could tick off all of the items on the list now. It's a complete pain in the ass, costs a ton of money, and can give you crap photos. Yet there are still millions of people that chose to use film over digital (and at least 50 or more of those aren't hipsters :D ).

Some people still drive class cars instead of modern hybrids, still listen to vinyl over digital, still read paper books instead of on a Kindle, and still use film cameras instead of digital. There will always be a certain percentage of strange people that don't want to do things the easy way, or the better way, but the fun way. The only way that film will truly die is if the current stockpile of film cameras eventually breaks one at a time and end up in a bin, until the only ones left to use are the T80s which will get skipped anyway because they're ugly.
 
For as long as I can remember I've liked old film cameras, I've collected a few (nothing very special or expensive) from 'antique shops' and latterly off eBay and have, over the years, enjoyed using them. It's funny thinking back, as the Canon A1 I bought new when it was 'state of the art' is now regarded as a classic! How the wheel turns.

After getting seduced by the convenience of digital photography I started shooting film again about 3 years ago. Why? I'd just switched to a full frame DSLR and was amazed by how I could get lovely-looking photos with such little effort. It all seemed a bit too easy, to the extent that I felt it had become more an experience of capturing images rather than the 'craft' of photography. So I decided to run a film or two through some of the old cameras I owned, and enjoyed the old-fashioned experience of metering the light, manually setting shutter speed and aperture, focusing and making sure I'd chosen the right angle and framed the shot nicely (as I may only have 8 shots on an entire roll of medium format film, so I need to make each one count!). I feel this has both improved my photography and rekindled my interest in it as a hobby and a subject.

Now, when I get a nice-looking photo at the end of it I actually feel I've deserved it; it's not been down to 'machine gun' tactics and the law of averages and it's depended more on experience, knowledge and patience. I feel this is more befitting of a hobby or pastime. Don't get me wrong, I still use digital cameras regularly for work and I still have my DSLR, which would be my first choice if I needed to ensure I'd got a good shot if the light was poor or I'd only got one chance at it. It's horses for courses.

So will I be buying a brand new 35mm SLR if they make one? No, as I'd rather have an old 'classic' to play with. However, if I were a school, college or university, I'd probably be interested in buying new so the students could use the same model of camera and it would give pretty much identical results across the batch. This would probably make teaching and learning a bit easier. So maybe, in addition to selling to 'first-time' film users, there might also be a market for a new 35mm SLR in the education sector? :)
 
Andysnap said:
Its got bugger all to do with how good the quality is or how many old timers are left using film equipment, its about enjoyment and choice and more people are choosing to shoot film because it is more engaging than boring digital photography. You may feel different because it was your job and as with most jobs it becomes boring and repetitive with time, for the rest of the us it hasn't gone that way and our output may be abysmal but at least we enjoy it.

Thank you and goodnight. :D
Click to expand...
FishyFish said:
I understand where you're coming from to a degree Terry, and I think that most commercial film photography has now been made obsolete by digital, but the enthusiast/ hobbyist / art photography movement is a different matter. The fact that digital is cheaper, easier and of higher quality is not necessarily a consideration where that market is concerned, in much the same way that digital music is cheaper, easier and of better quality than analogue - yet I can walk to my local Sainsbury's today in 2017 and buy vinyl records AND a turntable if I wish. People take pleasure in shooting film - it's not just about ease of results, or sharpness, or resolution or convenience. I can get much sharper photographs from either of my digital cameras than I can from my 35mm film cameras, there's no cost to shooting them, and everything is much easier, and yet I nontheless enjoy the process of shooting film more than digital AND love the look of the results I get.

This new camera doesn't have to be the best camera ever made to be a success - even a basic, but solid performer will make a lot of people happy and, if it succeeds, it shows confidence in the film photography market which could lead to more film cameras being produced.
Click to expand...

I still maintain there will be a time when it will no longer economic to manufacture roll or 35mm film. rollfilm will probably sink first because it will be uneconomic to manufacture and print backing paper in the small quantities required. nor viable to maintain the specialist duplex paper mills in production. As long as the existing cassette making machinery continues to function, they will probably be viable. But making new ones will be unsupportable. The Film base is already becoming problematic and recent offering are already very thin and suffer from excessive curl. Uncontaminated silver is hard to obtain, as even low levels of radioisotopes makes it unusable in emulsions.

All these factors will make materials extremely expensive and the balance between the interest in film and its affordability will put it out of reach for many potential users. leading to a rapid downward spiral.
Even to day the cost of buying a film and processing it is fairly exorbitant.
 
I bet if you do one of those 'historic money values' conversions it doesn't cost much (if any) more as a percentage of the average wage to buy and process film than it did in the late 70s and 1980s, particularly if you shop wisely and take advantage of special offers.
 
I always wonder what people mean when they band about the 'better quality' phrase when referring to digital over film. What defines better? Sharper? Less NOISE (digital thing, film has grain which is beautiful)? Higher resolution (Yawn!)? Cheaper to take thousands of images? For me, none of that equals better quality. The word better is thrown about far too easily with no thought given to what it means in terms of the image. I am not anti digital by any stretch, but the factors that are considered in this discussion are vacuous and meaningless. I used to be into gear when I started photography and zooming in to 300% in Lightroom to see if something was sharp. I learned that images needed to be perfectly balanced exposures and completely devoid of any flaws. I made technically sound photos that left me feeling cold. They had no feeling, no emotion, nothing.

Today, more photos are taken every second than ever before, and the majority of them are dismissed just as quickly. People who actually care about creating things using the medium of their choice, whether that's film in all it's different guises or digital, will continue to pay for it and it's on the increase, not the decline. Kodak are in profit. They are re-releasing film. Prices will continue to rise but everything does. I have now sold all my digital bodies and will continue to only shoot film for the foreseeable future, choosing my stock for each circumstance, taking a single frame instead of 20, or not pressing the shutter at all if I don't think it will work.

I have lots more to say, but no one will read a lengthy post so I am going to end there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Terrywoodenpic said:
I still maintain there will be a time when it will no longer economic to manufacture roll or 35mm film. rollfilm will probably sink first because it will be uneconomic to manufacture and print backing paper in the small quantities required. nor viable to maintain the specialist duplex paper mills in production. As long as the existing cassette making machinery continues to function, they will probably be viable. But making new ones will be unsupportable. The Film base is already becoming problematic and recent offering are already very thin and suffer from excessive curl. Uncontaminated silver is hard to obtain, as even low levels of radioisotopes makes it unusable in emulsions.

All these factors will make materials extremely expensive and the balance between the interest in film and its affordability will put it out of reach for many potential users. leading to a rapid downward spiral.
Even to day the cost of buying a film and processing it is fairly exorbitant.
Click to expand...

So what? If they stop making film or it is a ridiculous price then I won't give up photography but use a digi....until then I will continue to use film.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
I always wonder what people mean when they band about the 'better quality' phrase when referring to digital over film. What defines better? Sharper? Less NOISE (digital thing, film has grain which is beautiful)? Higher resolution (Yawn!)? Cheaper to take thousands of images? For me, none of that equals better quality. The word better is thrown about far too easily with no thought given to what it means in terms of the image. I am not anti digital by any stretch, but the factors that are considered in this discussion are vacuous and meaningless. I used to be into gear when I started photography and zooming in to 300% in Lightroom to see if something was sharp. I learned that images needed to be perfectly balanced exposures and completely devoid of any flaws. I made technically sound photos that left me feeling cold. They had no feeling, no emotion, nothing.

Today, more photos are taken every second than ever before, and the majority of them are dismissed just as quickly. People who actually care about creating things using the medium of their choice, whether that's film in all it's different guises or digital, will continue to pay for it and it's on the increase, not the decline. Kodak are in profit. They are re-releasing film. Prices will continue to rise but everything does. I have now sold all my digital bodies and will continue to only shoot film for the foreseeable future, choosing my stock for each circumstance, taking a single frame instead of 20, or not pressing the shutter at all if I don't think it will work.

I have lots more to say, but no one will read a lengthy post so I am going to end there.
Click to expand...


There is no doubt at all, that in all the measurable qualities Digital makes superior images.
In the rarefied world of wet printing there are unidentifiable tonal qualities that are thought to define film photography.
These do not transpose in any way to scanned film.
Unfortunately digital files or film, printed on to Bromide paper or indeed Byrata coated paper, becomes indistinguishable to each other in tonal quality. However the digital file is likely to be sharper and more detailed. because of the increased sharpness of digital lenses and the pixel count of modern sensors. at high ISO levels the difference becomes absolute.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I still maintain there will be a time when it will no longer economic to manufacture roll or 35mm film
Click to expand...

Sure, there may be. There may also be a time when it's no longer economic to make sensors for digital cameras. I'm not going to predict the future. Heck, Trump may press the button next week.
However, I can't see there being a problem in the near to medium future. Film will be produced as long as people are buying, and we're getting new formats (Instax) as well as new film.

I shoot both film and digital, and it's nice to have a choice. I don't really over think which one I use, I just go with whatever feels right on the day.
Generally I like the mixture of analogue and digital workflows, the digital workflow has helped film massively. Back in the 80s-90s in my teens/twenties I didn't have access to a darkroom, let alone understood what happened in one. Now I routinely post-process my film scans in Lightroom or Snapseed and can print at home easily
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
. However the digital file is likely to be sharper and more detailed. because of the increased sharpness of digital lenses and the pixel count of modern sensors. at high ISO levels the difference becomes absolute.
Click to expand...

Meh. The metrics used to describe "better" are just that; attempts to quantify, what is around here anyway, largely an emotional choice. Does it matter if the record shot of my lad is sharp and can be blown up to A0 if it makes someone smile, does it matter that my "art" is on a ridiculously heavy camera that takes minutes to take a shot which could be snapped in seconds with my DSLR. Not to me at least. If anything the big camera an cumbersome process mean I take longer on the shot and have less processing to do later, that is better.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
There is no doubt at all, that in all the measurable qualities Digital makes superior images.
In the rarefied world of wet printing there are unidentifiable tonal qualities that are thought to define film photography.
These do not transpose in any way to scanned film.
Unfortunately digital files or film, printed on to Bromide paper or indeed Byrata coated paper, becomes indistinguishable to each other in tonal quality. However the digital file is likely to be sharper and more detailed. because of the increased sharpness of digital lenses and the pixel count of modern sensors. at high ISO levels the difference becomes absolute.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but all that makes me glaze over and yawn. None of that is relevant in conveying emotional or meaningful imagery. It's a very forum-oriented attitude unfortunately and one of the reasons I don't frequent this or other forums any more. Instead I meet a few friends who have similar interests and discuss photography, show prints, flick through books and try and discuss what makes certain images feel.

Analogue photography has given me something I love and that I feel we lost with digital It's not a nostalgic thing at all because it's still very, VERY relevant. I am done pointing a computer with a lens at something because the marketing people say it's 'BETTER' (whatever they mean by better).
 
gazmorton2000 said:
I meet a few friends who have similar interests and discuss photography, show prints, flick through books and try and discuss what makes certain images feel.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you need to come on an F&C meet Gareth ;) Add whisky and a lot of food to your post and you've pretty much described the Cornwall meet! That, and you also get to see me fall off a train platform whilst @Andysnap tries to help me by strangling me with my own camera bag. It's a hoot!
 
Amateur photography is all about what floats your boat... I am all for that.
My posts are a prediction of the likely future, not a prescription of what people should or like or do.
 
Carl Hall said:
Sounds like you need to come on an F&C meet Gareth ;) Add whisky and a lot of food to your post and you've pretty much described the Cornwall meet! That, and you also get to see me fall off a train platform whilst @Andysnap tries to help me by strangling me with my own camera bag. It's a hoot!
Click to expand...

Thanks Carl. Perhaps I will one day. :)

Terrywoodenpic said:
Amateur photography is all about what floats your boat... I am all for that.
My posts are a prediction of the likely future, not a prescription of what people should or like or do.
Click to expand...

I am not being deliberately argumentative by the way, but there are people out there making very good livings from photography and doing it on film as their medium of choice.

Ste_S said:
I think that's a bit harsh on this forum. Good mix of people who shoot film and digital.

If you where talking about DP Review or similar, then fair enough
Click to expand...

Of course there are a good mix of people on here no doubt and I wasn't meaning to generalise as much, however personally I did find forums in general quite counter productive to what I want to do with my photography. I generally only pop in the F&C section now. I do think Terry's comments though about the people who would mainly want to use film (students and artists) are way off the mark when there are many enthusiasts, hobbyists AND working professionals who either use a part film workflow or a 100% film workflow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top