
Canon has sold its last film camera - gringoDan
https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/31/canon-has-sold-its-last-film-camera/
======
ccnafr
Original source: [https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/canon-is-now-out-of-the-
fil...](https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/canon-is-now-out-of-the-film-camera-
business-after-80-years/)

I'm so tired of the TechCrunch blog spam on this site. They've literally
stolen another site's news story and HN mods never replace their links with
the original source of the article.

Why is this site always given a pass for content theft?

~~~
ginger2016
What makes petapixel original source in this case ? Techcruch is reporting an
official Cannon announcement not breaking an exclusive story.

~~~
GuiA
From the first paragraph of the article:

 _The news was spotted by PetaPixel on the camera giant’s Japanese support
forum._

~~~
ccnafr
Breaking a story should be rewarded. Ok, I'll admit it. I hate sites like
TechCrunch or The Verge that simply take reports from other news sites, reword
them, and then pass them as their own. It disturbs me to learn that HN favors
TechCrunch like this.

~~~
mhomde
But, but, that's just how Blogs work man :)

They clearly attribute it to them (though I find it a tad lame they don't have
a specific attribution area), and you could argue that being featured on a
popular blog helps people discover them, and with google ranks as well.
Curation does add some value and it's not like The Verge for instance doesn't
create its own content.

I find sites that just repackage reddit stuff to be much much worse.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
> ...you could argue that being featured on a popular blog helps people
> discover them, and with google ranks as well.

I ran a semi-serious gaming blog for years and we often had our stories
repackaged and linked from Kotaku, at the time the biggest gaming blog in the
world. The extra traffic and SEO boost was negligible at best.

------
snowwrestler
I'm not surprised; in SLRs at least, Canon was never the dominant film camera
company with the biggest customer base. Their SLR business did not catch up to
and pass Nikon until the digital era.

Canon's decision to put the AF motor in the lens helped them in verticals that
use huge telephotos (sports, mostly). But their film cameras lagged Nikon in
the sophistication of their AF, their automated exposure control, and
especially their flash exposure control. These were all big deals in the era
when every frame was precious and mistakes were hidden until it's too late
(after the film was developed).

In digital cameras their AF system is now on par, and auto exposure is just
less important in general because of the ease of reviewing and post-processing
for exposure. They started moving past Nikon about 15 years ago by creating
sensors that were cheaper, larger, and had lower noise. Since then they have
filled in gaps in their lens lines, and used their expertise in video, to
maintain their lead.

~~~
jonknee
Well that and there is almost no market for new film cameras.

~~~
vvanders
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.

~~~
jonknee
And in the scheme of things there is almost no market for medium / large
format cameras (digital or otherwise).

~~~
ekianjo
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
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
It's like saying Ferrari doesn't matter market-wise because they sell only a
few thousands cars a year. The same goes for large format film photography.

~~~
macintux
Ferrari doesn't matter market-wise.

~~~
bronson
If that's true then why does everybody know who they are?

~~~
gambiting
Why would there be a correlation here? Ferrari could disappear tomorrow, and
it would have zero effect on the automotive market.

~~~
bronson
On sales? Sure. But the market as a whole? Ferrari is an outsize innovator,
both in technology and design. If they disappeared, you'd notice.

------
acomjean
As someone who shot and developed a lot of film (I was a photo editor at a
daily college paper..) I won’t miss it. Though printing black and white
pictures was kinda fun, they often had dust and getting the exporsure and
contrast right was tedious.

I don’t miss film.

Though there were a lot less pictures taken and shared before everyone had a
camera on their phone. A different time in a lot of ways.

~~~
ghaff
At one point I was probably spending 10s of hours a week doing B&W darkroom
work so I have a certain nostalgia for it. I also spent lots of time playing
with developer chemistry, etc.

But, no, I don't really miss it. It was an enjoyable hobby but it was also a
pain to the degree that it was a process you _had_ to go through in order to
arrive at the final photograph.

And color slides were just always a finicky and fairly expensive way to take
and show photos.

~~~
mauvehaus
I've never shot much transparency film, and I've definitely never developed
it. I guess my favorite part of shooting slides is that you can't fix things
in the darkroom. What you get off the camera is what you've got (absent
digital manipulation, of course).

As a pretty casual photographer (I don't have a darkroom or access to one, and
have never really been more than a roll a month shooter), that means I've both
been surprised at how well shots have come out, and disappointed at others.
It's an expensive feedback loop, to be sure.

I won't defend slide film for more serious work, but I love it for my own
casual use.

~~~
jacobush
In that respect, slide is a bit like shooting JPEG instead of raw.

------
jccalhoun
"The model in question is the EOS-1V, which, incidentally, the company
actually stopped making a full eight years ago. Since it has simply been
selling out the rest of its stock, which, it seems, has finally depleted."

That says a lot about how few they have been selling.

~~~
wiredfool
I think that's pretty standard for a lot of camera equipment. They'll do a run
of one lens, and then a run of another, rather than 10 of this and 10 of that.

~~~
msbarnett
I dunno about other companies, but Canon does "cellular" manufacturing rather
than having huge lines all dedicated to just one thing.

Each cell is 5-or-6 small reconfigurable stations manned by a couple of
people, who build a body or lens from start to finish, rapidly re-taskable to
different lenses or bodies on the fly. Hundreds of cells on a manufacturing
floor.

------
mauvehaus
This is a shame. For professionals, it has long made sense to make the
transition to digital. For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it
for the sheer joy of it, film is unsurpassed.

Developing B&W prints is as close to magic as I've experienced. For those who
don't know, B&W paper isn't sensitive to red light, so once you've exposed the
paper, you can put it in the developer and actually _watch the image appear_.
Plus there's something about the smell of a darkroom. The hot lamps of the
enlargers create a smell that mixes with the smell of the fixer and the stop
bath that's unmistakable.

Would I want to do any of this if I were shooting weddings? Definitely not. If
I'm taking my camera for a walk and want to see what I've captured,
absolutely!

The other thing that's a damned shame is the way the manufacturing has
changed. I've long been a Pentax man, and the old Super-Takumar and Super-
Multi-Coated (as distinct from the later SMC) lenses are a pleasure to use[0].

Everything about the way they fall to hand is perfect, and the machining is
immaculate. The focus ring is scalloped and knurled, and it's _metal_. They
must have cost a fortune to make. The SMC, K, M, and I'd assume the A series
lenses have a lot more plastic on the outside of the lenses, but the feel of
the focusing helix is still beyond reproach. Modern lenses, by comparison, are
made so that they can be driven by the autofocus mechanisms, and the feel of
the ring in manual mode is terrible.

That isn't to say that the modern lenses are optically worse; I'm sure the
situation is quite the opposite. Nonetheless, something has been lost. Again
all of this is moot for most people looking for the most productivity out of
their tools, or for the people shooting casually. The small group of people in
the middle, they'll miss it.

Honestly, it's like CD (or any other digital medium) vs records. Records are
quantitatively worse by any measure, but for the sheer pleasure of the
experience, they can't be matched. If I want to sit down and actually listen
to music, part of the enjoyment is the smell of the record and its sleeve, and
the tangible process of putting the needle on the record.

[0] Super Takumar and SMC Takumars here:
[http://blog.prairierimimages.com/2011/08/old-glass-
asahipent...](http://blog.prairierimimages.com/2011/08/old-glass-asahipentax-
smc-super-takumar.html) The Super-Multi-Coated Takumars are essentially
identical from the outside.

~~~
sureaboutthis
Note that "professionals" still use film, particularly in the high end art
market with large format and 'view' cameras in particular. One might think
that's "niche" but there are a lot of them out there.

~~~
vanderZwan
Heck, The Impossible Project managed to bring back polaroids.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals)

~~~
mauvehaus
The Impossible Project seems to be the happy coincidence of a number of people
who qualify as miracle workers and the manufacturing equipment not being
scrapped. I am awed by the work they're doing, even if I've never shot a
Polaroid picture in my life.

~~~
vanderZwan
Well, said miracle workers used to work at the manufacturing plant, and were
the ones who ensured the manufacturing equipment didn't get scrapped. That was
point of their whole initial campaign!

But yes, they deserve a lot of respect for what they achieved :)

------
jacquesm
My brother is a photographer and works in a camera store in his spare time -
or the other way around, depending on when you ask him.

He's spent a fortune over the years on film and cameras and switched to full
digital a while ago. Recently he traded all his glass & bodies for new Sony
gear, which he reckons outperforms both Canon and Nikon by a considerable
margin. So if you're letting go of film and are in the market for digital
don't count out Sony.

~~~
geerlingguy
> outperforms both Canon and Nikon by a considerable margin

Not sure the metric, but SLRs still own the focusing crown for most action-
based photography (though the mirrorless cameras are getting closer to being
good at it).

And exposure/metering is pretty much even, resolution is pretty even,
ISO/noise gives an edge to Sony/Nikon over Canon, body/UX/comfort/grip gives
an edge to Nikon/Canon over Sony (unless you have very small hands, maybe...),
battery life gives a huge lead to Nikon/Canon over Sony.

There are only a few aspects where Sony's current flagships have a substantial
difference, like high FPS shooting (20 vs ~10 for DSLRs), or 'seeing what
you're shooting' in the digital viewfinder.

Also, both Canon and Nikon are reportedly working on some full frame
mirrorless bodies to compete with Sony's flagships (they have both had various
cameras in the market in the past, e.g. Nikon 1 series, but none were as well-
rounded as what Sony's offering today).

~~~
petepete
> Not sure the metric, but SLRs still own the focusing crown for most action-
> based photography (though the mirrorless cameras are getting closer to being
> good at it)

I'm not sure this has been true since the Sony α9. Its autofocusing abilities
are _amazing_ , and that's coming from me - a Nikon fan and D500 owner. If I
shot people rather than wildlife, I'd probably switch for the eye-AF alone.

~~~
PuffinBlue
The a9 falls down when zooming and focusing at the same time though. That's
fairly important for sports and a few other parts of other types of
photography.

The Nikon D5 still has the crown when you add in that test and percentage wise
will beat Canon/Sony. In absolute numbers, because the Sony shoots so fast it
can bring home more 'keepers' in terms of numbers of photos though.

And the focus point coverage is WAY bigger on the a9, so overall I would call
it a tie depending on what you are shooting.

------
_ph_
This is not very surprising news - very recently I was wondering who still
sells film cameras. Digital has surpassed film in almost every way. It is
however quite scary to see technology completely go away which was so common
not long ago, sometimes even completely lost as technology. You can’t buy
proper Polaroid film any more, many other important film materials are
completely gone as well.

~~~
carbolite103
As far as 35mm systems it's pretty much just Leica and Nikon at the moment,
though I would imagine that Nikon is close to discontinuing their F6 flagship
soon. Thankfully many 35mm cameras from the 70s and 80s are engineering
masterpieces that will likely keep functioning well into the second half of
this century. I just hope that companies will continue making film stocks for
them.

~~~
lb1lf
Nikon even has - or at least had, until recently - two film cameras in their
line-up.

The ‘because we can’ high-end F6 and the entry-level, manual just about
everything FM10. (Though I think the current FM10 may be made by others under
licence.)

I think Voigtländer may still make a 35mm rangefinder, too.

~~~
devb
Cosina was the company licensed to make the Nikon FM10 and produced
rangefinders under the Voigtländer name. All of those products were
discontinued last year, sadly.

As far as I know, the F6 is the last one still in production.

~~~
lb1lf
That’s not unexpected, but still a bit sad.

Incidentally, Cosina also made the rangefinder I’d dub the Leica M7.5 - the
Zeiss Ikon-branded ZM. Wonderful camera.

As far as rangefinders go, the ZM IMHO is the one to beat, in close
competition with the Contax G2. (Autofocus! In a rangefinder!)

------
mvexel
I'm seriously curious how they were able to sell that last inventory. Folks
buying them for nostalgic reasons? Was there a real market left for top of the
line film SLRs that wasn't served by the used camera market? You can get
really good used ones for not very much money.

As a film shooter for 20+ years, I decided to break out my old Nikon FA and
shoot a roll of film today to mark the occasion. (I still keep some in the
fridge, Velvia 50 Daylight.) I wonder if the last place that would still
develop slide film around here last time I needed film developed still does
it. If they still take film, they probably ship it some place to get it
developed rather than do it in-house like they used to.

------
chuckkir
I was talking to a friend who recently got into 35mm film cameras. He develops
the color film himself, but then immediately scans it in and uses digital
tools to work on the images. I left a bit confused; what is he gaining by
using film as the medium?

~~~
wepple
Film has a particular look and feel to it that I’ve absolutely never seen
replicated in digital.

I’m confident that one day it probably will be; maybe ML will be up to the
task where filters and transforms just can’t do the right job?

Besides that, the process of taking photographs is surprisingly different. You
don’t spray and pray - a shutter costs you more than a dollar so you spend
more time looking, and learn to hunt with your eyes more. It’s impossible to
check your photos on the LCD, so you just get on with photography, and have an
element of suspense to find out what you captured. Also, no batteries to go
flat. There’s also a forced creativity when working with basic controls like
aperture and shutter speed, instead of hundreds of different settings and
knobs to get caught up in.

Of course, if I were a profession photographer these would in no way make up
for the downsides, so hand me that 5d/d600/M-P, but they’re reasons you may
still shoot film and translate to digital to share/store.

~~~
chuckkir
So it's sort of like the vinyl record thing then? I suspect the difference in
photographs that you see is more in the difference between using an enlarger
and photo paper vs. a color printer, and in this case I assume he's printing
from the processed digital image. Assuming I'm right then he's not getting
that advantage but I can see how someone with an enlarger could do things
differently.

As for the technique, I agree that it was more exacting back in the film days.
I also had much less money then. The net result was that I didn't take a lot
of photos I now wished that I had. Although these days that's what we use our
phones for so I guess it's not really an issue.

There is a lot of very nice gear available quite cheaply though. Maybe this
will be a trend an it's time to buy Kodak stock?

------
mathewsanders
When I was 16 (1997) a photographer friend of my parents gave me his old Canon
AE-1 (I think released in 1980 or 81) it’s shutter wasn’t working and I took
it into the local Canon center where they fixed the shutter, replaced light
seal on film door, and even gave me a lens cap for something like NZD$50.

Amazing that companies used to build such sturdy products that they could be
cheaply fixed 15+ years after they were sold...

Also sort of amazing is that Canon even had a physical presence that as a
consumer I could visit a physical offices and drop of a product in person to
be fixed!

~~~
rangibaby
> Amazing that companies used to build such sturdy products that they could be
> cheaply fixed 15+ years after they were sold...

The award for most durable SLR has to go to the Pentax Spotmatic. The first
ones were released in 1964, and they are seemingly indestructible.

Even the exposure meter is a future-proof design; it was designed for mercury
(1.35V) batteries but the circuit was designed in a way that modern LR44
(1.5V) cells "just work"!

Nikon lenses from the same era generally need a CLA because the grease used on
their focusing helicoids gums up over the years and makes focusing feel dry,
bumpy, and just plain nasty. I have come across some Super Takumar (Pentax)
examples that are moldy enough that they would probably grow mushrooms if you
left them outside soon the shady side of a tree, but the focusing feel is
always smooth and perfect.

The only lens I have that feels better is a Voigtlander and it cost $500 vs
$10 for an ugly but usable Super Takumar lens.

~~~
lb1lf
-The Pentax Spotmatic is wonderful (I used my father's Spotmatic for years until I had saved enough to get my own SLR - my teenage rebellion was buying into the F system rather than Pentax... :))

I'd argue that the Nikon FM2 is just about as indestructible, though - but I
won't argue about the lenses; I have enough old Nikkor optics to know better!

~~~
rangibaby
Ohhh yeah! I don't have an FM but do have an FE and it is probably my favorite
camera full stop. It's just the right amount of "camera", and is never
annoying or frustrating to use, in either automatic or manual modes.

Agreed 100% on the indestructibility - whoever used mine before I got it
dented and brassed up good. The camera doesn't care.

The focusing screen is a joy and better than any DSLR. It's telling that the
big and bright finder is a selling point of the D850. If you still use your
FM2 I would suggest getting a K3 screen. Nikon still sell them new!

~~~
lb1lf
Oooh, the FE is a very nice little camera (Never owned one, but have adopted
one on occasion. Mounts just about everything, except them new-fangled G
lenses. Well, it will MOUNT, but...)

I have to admit I actually swapped the K3 for an -hm- B3, I believe - the all-
matte one with a circle to show the coverage of the center-weighted meter - I
found the split prism was more of a distraction than an aid _for my eyes_; I
realize I am the odd man out on this one.

Matter of fact, I shot a couple of rolls of Tri-X in the FM2 just the other
day; will process it one of these days when the kids fall asleep early enough
for me to still feel like actually doing something after their bedtime!

------
sofaofthedamned
I don't understand why Google / MS / Amazon etc don't buy either of Nikon or
Canon? It'd give them credibility and they'd immediately improve the DSLRs.
Imagine a decent Nikon with the Google Photos processing? Decent wifi? Regular
updates?

~~~
fetus8
What credibility are Nikon or Canon missing? Both companies have a level of
brand recognition unrivaled in the Photography world...? Only in recent years
has Sony and maybe Fujifilm developed more respect due to some of their
advancements where Nikon and Canon have lacked.

Their DSLR's are market leaders still. Again, only in recent years have
Mirrorless cameras have started to catch up with the DSLRs Nikon and Canon
have been releasing. Based on current rumors, both Canon and Nikon are
supposedly working on their first serious Mirrorless cameras to compete with
the likes of Sony's A7 series...

EDIT: Personally, I would avoid any camera that had Google integration built
in. Part of the reason I still carry around a DSLR today is because I like
knowing that the photos on my camera, and then stored on a local HDD at my
house. I don't think I'm alone in this thought either. Computational
Photography is cool and all, but I don't need to provide all my photos into a
server farm to be analyzed.

~~~
sofaofthedamned
Good points, but the market is dying for DSLRs. I wince each time I use mine
for the terrible wifi capability, the awful OS, etc. Why can't it be
modernised? Because Canon and Nikon won't do it.

~~~
toomanybeersies
DSLRs have terrible WiFi because there is little demand for it.

SD cards are interchangeable, and slot into your computer for a reason.

~~~
BeetleB
I want to view the photo on my phone while on site - not when I get home.

~~~
dboreham
My Canon M5's WiFi actually "just works" and does what you want : view and
download images to the phone in the field. It also uses the phone's GPS to
geotag images. This is with an Android phone -- the workflow isn't as smooth
with iOS apparently because Apple doesn't allow apps to drive the WiFi
association. The phone maintains a BT connection to the camera and uses that
as a side channel by which it coordinates an on-demand WiFi association.

Previous generations were not so easy to use -- my 6D does work but lacks the
auto-connect via BT feature. Presumably the 6D2 has that though.

