Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonknee | Hacker News Reader

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

Right. Most advances Canon has made in SLRs (say, the AF upgrades the comment you are replying to above mentions) could be easily 'backported' to a film camera: in a real SLR, the sensor isn't exposed to light until the picture is ready to be taken and focus/exposure settings have already been decided, so it's not like those features rely on the digital image sensor in any way.

The reason why Canon doesn't make a film SLR that includes the features that bring their cameras ahead of Nikon is because they don't think enough people will want to pay for them. And that's probably right.

The reason why AF for film is hard is because AF tends to move around the point of best focus and moving a lens is terribly slow compared to the inter-frame time. So you simply don't have the time to figure out what the ideal focus is while shooting film, especially not if camera and/or subject are moving, which is sort of the whole reason for shooting video to begin with.

Film still cameras, not film cinema cameras.

Ah sorry. That's a Dutchism, 'film' here is moving.

You’re confusing film and video.

Anyway (D)SLR use phase detect autofocus in which you don’t have to figure out much at all.

Mirrorless is another thing.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Ferrari doesn't matter market-wise.

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

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

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.

But Ferrari matters greatly in the luxury sports car segment. There's no sin in tailoring a business to a small niche.

Heck, I'd say "in the grand scheme of things", if you look at some of the data available (https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/latest-camera-sales-chart-r...), stand-alone digital cameras "don't matter market-wise" compared to what has replaced them for a lot of people -- smartphones. Not that all stand alone digital cameras will disappear anytime soon (especially in segments like the DSLR market where the lenses can offer advantages for certain pictures), but the general purpose "compact digital camera" is probably doomed.

A couple of years ago I bought a Hasselblad 503cx w/80mm lens, paid about $1000 for it. Also, a 50mm CF that cost me around another $400. So relatively expensive for a 25-year-old camera, but in inflation-adjusted terms about 10 percent of it's original price. Some desirable cameras still have some value, but a lot are going for pennies on the dollar.

I paid more for the 'blad than either of my 4x5's.

I think people who work in business side of large scale print would disagree. Granted it's no where near the scale of consumer SLRs but there's a reason MF/LF cameras exist.

Don't tell the medium and large format professionals in agencies and art works around the world. They'll be shocked to hear that.

I actually don't think they'd be shocked, it's not like there's a ton of activity in the segment. They're crucial tools needed by small numbers of people.

Sorry but you don't know the market and there is far more going on than you appear to be aware of.

I think you can get digital backs starting about 8k for medium format TLR. But yeah, as you point out, higher end digital backs sell for a fortune.

Maybe the market for medium format film is better, but my experience with large format is that people practically give the gear away.

That depends. Sure, you can dip your toes in the large format pool quite cheaply (everything, as they say, is relative!) - but the fancier optics and cameras get pretty expensive pretty fast.

(Not to mention the cost of 4x5 or (shudder!) 8x10 processing; B&W is eminently doable in the home, but IMHO where LF really, really shines is with dias film - developing that at home is not for the faint of heart.)

That’s a small market, and most photogs I know who shoot MF/LF film are using cameras that are 50+ years old (Hasselblads mostly).

A digital back can improve workflow, but quality is still better with film at those sizes. These are studio cameras through and through; and I was able to connect a Hasselblad to some el cheapo Chinese lighting setup I bought on Amazon a year ago. That’s backwards compatibility.

Yep - I have a friend who takes pictures of (very expensive, high profile) weddings all around the world with a MF film Hasselblad. They still can't be beat

Hasselblad is like Montblanc of fountain pens, or Glock for handguns, at the end of the day, there is a leader in any field and they get exponentially high attention (because everyone can name that one leading brand name in any field), so they just charge that much more.

At the end of the day Hasselblad is only 6x6 (i.e the negative size), but there are many bigger format (in medium format) cameras available like Mamiya 6, Mamiya 7, GW690III (which is 6x9, twice the negative size of Hasselblad H1's 6x4.5).

Hasselblad is nice, and fortunately not that expensive these days (probably Leica gears are still costlier :p )

If you are looking for the ultimate medium format system camera, the obvious answer is Fuji GX680. It's waay bigger than the Hassy, and you can also put digital backs on it. The only downside is it's electronic camera, not mechanical.

I have a GW690II, have you used that one? Do you know how does it compare with GX680?

Well, there are always exceptions. Leica still make film cameras: https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-A https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082912-REG/leica_103...

No autofocus, no auto-exposure, and costs almost $4700 body only. Not something the typical film shooters will use, though :p

Sure, but Nikon and Leica still sell 35mm film cameras.

I think that because they were the dominant brands in 35mm in the film era, they still have fans today among people who still like to shoot film.

No need. Even film cameras from the early 2000s sell for quite cheap these days and take excellent photos. What matters for film more is the end medium, i.e. the film itself. The optics and sensors make it easier to take good pictures but that hasn't changed the game for film since the 70s, except for specific things like sports where having a camera that can take 6fps was a great feature.

I remember my dad going to all of our family gatherings and baseball/basketball/soccer games with his trusty Canon A-1. He passed it along with a few of the lenses he no longer needed when he moved to a Canon SLR, and it's been my trusty sidekick when documenting family gatherings and niece/nephew's baseball/basketball/soccer games (though it helps my {brother,sister}s{,-in-law} don't share pictures on Facebook - they want a nice scrapbook like their parents had for them).

Almost no - but what tiny market there is, is growing. My favorite pet project to watch right now is

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reflexcamera/reflex-bri...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com