Is the film camera dead? Discussion and poll.

**AntonyF** · 14 September 2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Lots of people lost their precious photos in a fire, flooding or any other catastrophe. The point I'm trying to make is; digital or traditional photos, survival is only guaranteed by the owner. The only difference is the different approaches needed to guarantee their survival.

You know, that's kind of obvious but it'd never occured to me. I'm always worrying that I don't backup my digital photos, but never once have I given any thought to the ones stuck in a drawer.

**ShandaLear** · 16 September 2006, 05:30 AM

I started on a Pentax K-1000 in high school. I still have my old Nikon SLR, but since getting my digital SLR I don't use it.

While I am not talented enough to do so myself, I am a bit of a magazine and book junkie, and I've SEEN others (professionals) do everything on a digital that was once possible on film. Plus you can now make film negatives from your card now, and manipulate them in a darkroom. There was a big thing on old purists doing it in one of those ridiculously expensive UK mags I wore a hole through at Barnes and Noble one afternoon.

I used to like the control on my old film models, but the longer I push myself to learn more and adapt the more I find I can get that if I am willing to tinker and ask for help or look it up somewhere.

Also, there are some really good digital SLRs for short change. The Fuji S5200 is the one I use now and it only cost me $250 on sale. I also have a much more pricey Olympus but never bother to use it since I fell in love with this one (purchased for hubby and promptly stolen like all cool things I give him).

**WolfMoonHP** · 18 September 2006, 01:43 PM

I use my digital cameras far more than my film camera, I must admit. I have a Nikon D70, with 5 assorted lenses, and just added a Nikon D200 (10.2 MP) Got it Saturday, for my birthday, so haven't used it yet. I also have a Sony cybershot that I never leave the house without. It fits comfortably in my pocket, and even at 5.1 MP, is good enough to make pictures that can't wait until I run home and get the SLR's.

BUT: Until the resolution of the digitals can equal that of film, I will not stop using the 35 mm. The last tech data I read indicated that the resolution of film is in excess of 24 MP. And for some photos, I opt for the highest resolution I can get. I have sold prints blown up to 16" x 20" and at that size, you can tell the difference. The great thing about it is that my film camera uses the same lenses my digital cameras use, so I don't need a whole new setup.

**Nuno** · 19 September 2006, 03:29 PM

I never took so many pictures before having a digital camera. The freedom it brought to me... I can take as many pictures I need, without paying anything. It's wonderful! But I know many people still uses film cams... so, not dead yet.

**DougW** · 21 September 2006, 05:33 AM

I voted dead as well, but for economic reasons. Without a strong market for film, new products will be slow coming or stop entirely. I will mourn that (I have a nice collection of 35mm bodies and lenses) but only a bit.

A couple of considerations... first digital, even at 6MP is excellent. Far better than I've seen from amatuer shots on cheap film. Arguing about resolution of film being better is moot... and 8X10 camera is best of all but I'm not going to shoot one anyway.

Also digital cameras are not created equal. I'd rather have my 6MP Pentax SLR than a point and shoot at 10MP. There is a huge difference in performance, sensitivity, color depth and shutter response between the two classes and the p&s will lose on each count despite the pixel numbers.

Finally there comes the whole issue of acessories. The Pentax SLR I have is fully compatible with my historic collection of film-based lenses, stereo adapters and bellows units. That power combined with digital can be absolutely magic.

Film can't compete with that line up. If we add in cost of processing ($6 for film and $17 for processing on a 36 exposure roll of high quality film) in my neighborhood, and my digital SLR paid for itself in 2 months.

Film is dead, though it may not know it yet. Some areas in the industrial and medical fields will continue for a while but their days are numbered too.

...Doug

**gidgit** · 25 September 2006, 03:18 PM

Some good points brought up in this thread...

I am not much of a photographer... snap and digital process all the way for this kid...

Oh CCD, Oh CCD, the world's sure a chang'n....

**BlueFlare** · 29 September 2006, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by DougW

Without a strong market for film, new products will be slow coming or stop entirely.

I don't see it stop entirely, for the same reason why some people are still, believe it or not, buying vinyl records. Vinyl sales actually slightly went up according to a recent TV news report.

**Hap** · 13 October 2006, 01:14 AM

I still have/use all my film cameras as well as my Nikon coolpix 8800

**ren2980** · 21 December 2006, 05:26 PM

I have been shooting the positive film for more than 25 years, Canon EOS 1V and 1N are my favorites. Despite I have more than 100 roles of Fuji Velvia 50, Kodachrome 25, 100 in the fridge, I am afraid to agree that the film camera is not dead yet, but getting close. And the film camera will eventually be fading out.

**Soquili** · 21 December 2006, 05:47 PM

I'm afraid that the film camera is fading away

The high end digital cameras are getting better with each new generation and will become almost as good as film. There are a lot of effects that can be added to digital images that are extremely difficult to do in the dark room. But there are some things you can do in the camera and/or in the dark room that are extremely difficult to duplicate using software.

I haven't seen a digital camera and software that can duplicate many of Ansel Adams' photographs accurately.