# Did I just witness the end of film cameras and film?



## F5 Penguin (Feb 3, 2018)

I was going to post this in my other thread and started typing but then thought it really is a topic of it's own. Quoted is the last post made by another member in the thread I was going to respond too before I thought a new thread may be required.



timor said:


> And good luck with this. Shoot film and do not overthink it. Whatever you gonna created it is only for your personal happiness. Same with any digital shooters. No other consequences at all.



Thanks but you know what, I may just pack the F5 away and retire it along with film. I notice the LCD is beginning to fade, still totally fine for use but it ain't what it was, I have a good memory. Kinda disappointing as a silly little LCD is going to bring this great camera down. Same with any other camera with a LCD, it's just a matter of time. I was going to  shoot film long term (along with digital)  buy a film scanner, I currently have a no longer working Nikon LS2000 but as I can see the end of the line for the camera doesn't seem much point. I have 2 other film bodies with LCD's and of course they will suffer the same fate, if they are not already there, haven't tried them. All my bodies will die due to silly LCD's. Everyone's camera bodies will die in time so maybe best to just live in the moment and use what is current and new? Eventually today's cameras will die as well, all have LCD's so why not use them like mad while they still function 100%?

No matter how much people wish to continue using film, I believe I can now see the end of the line for it. A large chunk of film users will have film bodies with LCD's. Once these cameras die, you would think most film users won't bother with the effort to try and keep going with film and will simply move to full time digital. The limited market that is there for film even now will become totally minuscule. Surely won't be viable for anyone to produce film related products any longer???

Any thoughts? I know the last few days I've gone on a roller-coaster ride from great excitement about film again to mass depression! lol

How about some company start producing some LCD's please??? Pretty please!


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 3, 2018)

Older film cameras were made with all mechanical parts without internal metering, so to some film shooters the LCD screen may not be as important.  All I need is the dial for shutter speed and the ability to change the aperture.   If I remember it correctly, the Nikon F6 is still in production.  If my Pentax 645nii's LCD screen dies, I don't think it matters much to me.


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 3, 2018)

Only one of my film cameras has a LCD screen (EOS 650). Cameras like my Voigtlander Vito B have a good century or more of working life ahead of them. My Contessa Nettel Piccolette which is already a century old (made in 1919 so strictly 99 years old) is as good as the day it was made.


----------



## limr (Feb 3, 2018)

That is some kind of paper-thin argument. Your false premises are that a) most people who still shoot film use cameras with LCD screens, and b) those same people would have no interest and/or ability to continue using film if those cameras break, and c) the only option left for those who still want to do photography is to use the latest, shiniest new technology.

Weak.


----------



## Overread (Feb 3, 2018)

Also you're ignoring the fact that film likely will survive. Sure it won't be sold and developed in every single highstreet chemist as it once was; but mail order film and processing is already here. I fully expect that there will a few companies that will start up that will produce quality film camera bodies; or which might well repair those LCD and other common issues with existing film cameras. 

You might not see a new film camera from the big names, or if you do it might be a once-off release (potential high price or limited stock/marketing); but I'd be very surprised if film vanished entirely. 

At present the mail order film and processing is around, but there's a huge bloat of 2nd hand quality film camera bodies on the market. So there's no real pressure to produce new bodies as there is a lot on the market (heck the local auction houses have loads of old film stuff going through them quite regularly). So right now there's no market pressure for brand new film cameras in any big way (and where there is its for advanced cameras rather than basic ones); but I'm sure as time goes on that market demand will rise (even if the market size itself doesn't).


Asides which why not get your camera repaired or buy a replacement; if you enjoy shooting film keep shooting it I don't see why you need to start singing the swans song so early


----------



## Braineack (Feb 3, 2018)

they still make record albums for some reason too.


----------



## webestang64 (Feb 3, 2018)

Just glad I have over 200 film cameras, 6 turntables, 4 audio cassette recorder/players, 5 VHS players and 3 typewriters.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 3, 2018)

Ain't no stinkin' LCD in my Rolleiflex. Doesn't take a bleepin' battery either. 

Joe


----------



## Gary A. (Feb 3, 2018)

No stinkin' LCD on my Nikons or Leica.


----------



## timor (Feb 3, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> I was going to post this in my other thread and started typing but then thought it really is a topic of it's own. Quoted is the last post made by another member in the thread I was going to respond too before I thought a new thread may be required.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is something inconsistent with you. I think you just like to shoot nice, shiny, fully automatic cameras. Doesn't matter film or digital. I am puzzled now, what was about your previous discussion film versus digital.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 3, 2018)

What LCD screen? My oldest camera is about 100 years old. I have one that's maybe 80 years old, has a level that still hasn't hardened and the liquid still moves to level the camera. They seem to have been built to last. Not that they can't break down, but are reparable, with some small tools and a parts camera. 

Film came back, vinyl came back, I think because they were & are good. Not that they're back on a wide scale but still. 8 tracks though, I don't think those are coming back.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 3, 2018)

The vast preponderance of film cameras had no LCD screen of any kind. And likely more than 80% of film cameras were mostly-mechanical (mechanically-timed shutters, mechanically actuated iris, mechanically human-powered focusing,etc) and needed a battery of some type only to perform metering. From maybe 1975 onward, the electronically-timed shutter became more and more common, and as time went by, electrical current to both time and power the shutter became the normal type of camera design in most, but not all, categories. Medium format or rollfilm cameras were mostly mechanically-timed and operated; sheet film cameras were pretty much all-mechanical. So...this LCD screen argument....ehhhh, no, not buying it, except for  the examples of very late-stage cameras produced after say, 1985 or so, until the end of wide film-camera production. MOST film cameras have no LCD.

As for scanning film: I truly believe that for the majority of amateurs and hobbyists, and most professionals as well, (except pro's who demand  high-dollar drum scan type levels of quality) that the NEWEST-era digital cameras (24 to 50 megapixels on APS-C or FX), when paired with a quality flat field macro lens and a decent light source, are producing better digitized images from film than the vast majority of scanners, and are doing the work faster, easier, and with fewer bad dust and scratch effects. My admittedly limited research has turned up examples of 24-megapixel and 36-megapixel d-slr "scans" of slides and negatives that look BETTER, flat-out better, than the results of most scanners. So, I think moving forward, we'll see more and more people moving to digital camera set-ups using the equivalent of old-school "slide duplicator" set-ups as the easy and productive way to transfer film-captured images into pixel-built images!


----------



## webestang64 (Feb 3, 2018)

vintagesnaps said:


> 8 tracks though, I don't think those are coming back.



Don't say that to a buddy of mine, he still has hopes.......and a under dash 8-track player in his  2016 Ford F150.....LOL


----------



## ac12 (Feb 3, 2018)

So get a F2.


----------



## Peeb (Feb 3, 2018)

ac12 said:


> So get a F2.


 Or if you are really worried about it, an FM


----------



## compur (Feb 3, 2018)

What's an LCD?


----------



## OldManJim (Feb 3, 2018)

Excellent point from the OP. Guess I'll have to watch for the fading LCD screens on my Zeiss Ikonta and my Voigtlander.


----------



## cemam (Feb 3, 2018)

I have not shot film for years.   I had no idea that they made film cameras with LCDs.  Seems like putting a sound  system in a horse buggy.


----------



## timor (Feb 4, 2018)

cemam said:


> I have not shot film for years.   I had no idea that they made film cameras with LCDs.  Seems like putting a sound  system in a horse buggy.


Seems like you just came back form a space mission. 50 years long mission and you missed all the memos about Earth history in that period.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

OMG. Ok. I hope my posts give you guys a chuckle because yours certainly do give me a little chuckle! lol

Now, down to business:

No, I do not like cameras because they are shiny. I'd be a Canon user after they brought out all those pretty white lenses for the first time in the film days. I use the film cameras of my generation. I learned on manual advance film SLR's. Later on I moved on to my current gear. When I have spent ridiculous amounts of money on film gear that was current at the time, I'm not going to toss it out to buy a camera that was made 20 years earlier.

There are clearly quite a few hardcore traditionalists here. Posting on this forum brings me back to the 90's when I was trying to explain to Leica people why I am not buying a Leica and I am buying a Nikon. They could never understand. Truly bewildered staring at me like there was something wrong and I should see someone. lol
There are many people out there using LCD film cameras. They will eventually die. Cameras that is...errr...people too I guess but we are still talking about cameras. Not all film users are even capable of any kind of accurate metering without a multi segment meter. I can tell you this through a great deal of experience. These types of film users still using film today WILL run off to digital when the LCD's go. No doubt whatsoever.
For those of us capable of metering with a hand held or simple center weighted or spot, there are many film camera options. The question is, how many of us capable of this are there??? Is it enough to continue producing film products for what might become an incredibly small group??? I used the word minuscule remember? Time will tell. I've made many accurate predictions in the past. Even on the hand held metering aspect, I use a Variosix F even today! It has a great big LCD panel too! Gonna have to find a simpler hand held meter!

I do honestly believe 35mm film of some description should remain available for the completion of my lifetime. I do hope so. Wouldn't say the same for other types of film.
Since my original post I have looked at what I already have in the way of gear and likely have enough to see me through. My F5 would be my prime film body and this is a mint condition camera I specifically preserved virtually from new. The LCD is fading, I know this but it's only beginning. Many others LCD's are likely fading too but people haven't really noticed it yet as it's ever so slight. My LCD may work for another decade! I'll have to have a good look but I think as long as the viewfinder information works the camera will be totally usable without either of the 2 LCD's working. Only issue is setting film speed which is not possible via the viewfinder or anywhere else except the rear LCD. I can set this via Photo Secretary with the F5 plugged into a PC or laptop. So I'll likely be fine.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

I should say, I also find it quite amusing that in this same film dedicated forum people can argue in my other thread that digital is as tough to get results as film and personal satisfaction of either medium is the same. Then in this thread everything changes to totally hardcore traditionalists using very basic cameras and defending film.
I have spent the last week now going through a bunch of old film images and also looking at some of my recent digital stuff. My god did it take more work to get anywhere with film! I think if you can't see this the only rational and logical explanation is you simply must be shooting garbage with both mediums! I think you just like to argue.

Let me have it! lol


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

Derrel said:


> As for scanning film: I truly believe that for the majority of amateurs and hobbyists, and most professionals as well, (except pro's who demand  high-dollar drum scan type levels of quality) that the NEWEST-era digital cameras (24 to 50 megapixels on APS-C or FX), when paired with a quality flat field macro lens and a decent light source, are producing better digitized images from film than the vast majority of scanners, and are doing the work faster, easier, and with fewer bad dust and scratch effects. My admittedly limited research has turned up examples of 24-megapixel and 36-megapixel d-slr "scans" of slides and negatives that look BETTER, flat-out better, than the results of most scanners. So, I think moving forward, we'll see more and more people moving to digital camera set-ups using the equivalent of old-school "slide duplicator" set-ups as the easy and productive way to transfer film-captured images into pixel-built images!



May very well be correct. I'm going to look at duplicating with a camera and see where this method falls short. Worth some testing time anyhow.


----------



## ac12 (Feb 4, 2018)

If the LCD on you F5 is failing, and this a major issue for you.
Then use a film camera without a LCD.   Simple straightforward solution.

Even more so, use a fully manual camera, so you do not need batteries.  
That frees you from the potential of the battery becoming difficult/impossible to get, as the mercury batteries became.


----------



## pendennis (Feb 4, 2018)

Derrel said:


> ...
> As for scanning film: I truly believe that for the majority of amateurs and hobbyists, and most professionals as well, (except pro's who demand  high-dollar drum scan type levels of quality) that the NEWEST-era digital cameras (24 to 50 megapixels on APS-C or FX), when paired with a quality flat field macro lens and a decent light source, are producing better digitized images from film than the vast majority of scanners, and are doing the work faster, easier, and with fewer bad dust and scratch effects. My admittedly limited research has turned up examples of 24-megapixel and 36-megapixel d-slr "scans" of slides and negatives that look BETTER, flat-out better, than the results of most scanners. So, I think moving forward, we'll see more and more people moving to digital camera set-ups using the equivalent of old-school "slide duplicator" set-ups as the easy and productive way to transfer film-captured images into pixel-built images!


Digital scanning opened up an entirely different perspective of my film, both negatives and transparencies.

For years, I'd get great transparencies in several formats, but the resultant prints, using internegs, was a bit disappointing, and even when I provided detailed instructions to the labs, prints were sometimes too contrasty, with some details burned out or lost in the shadows, but that's the nature of the interneg.  I did get a few Cibachrome prints made, and their colors were almost too vivid. 

Enter my Epson V850, and the world changed.  I've now scanned in around 3K transparencies and negatives.  No, it's not a drum scanner, but I get far better results than I ever did with internegs.

I also found that I didn't have to do nearly as much editing as I thought.  The transparencies were stored cool, dark, and dry, so color shifting of Ektachrome and Fujichrome was minimal.  Negatives were also amazingly simple to convert.

Even with minimal editing, I get images which are far better than I hoped.  And 4x5 transparencies are stunning when converted.

I'm still considering an attachment for my Nikkor 105 f/2.8.


----------



## timor (Feb 4, 2018)

ac12 said:


> If the LCD on you F5 is failing, and this a major issue for you.
> Then use a film camera without a LCD.   Simple straightforward solution.
> 
> Even more so, use a fully manual camera, so you do not need batteries.
> That frees you from the potential of the battery becoming difficult/impossible to get, as the mercury batteries became.


Good advice, but not for people who don't like "old hard core".


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

timor said:


> Good advice, but not for people who don't like "old hard core".



Film is film, with or without LCD.  I don't know but maybe film isn't for you if a small LCD screen is so critical that you can't shoot film without it.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

timor said:


> Good advice, but not for people who don't like "old hard core".



It's not even the hardcore aspect. It has sentimental significance using the F5. It's the camera I want to use. It's the camera that I did the most important things with in my photographic film life. If I am going to return to film, it is the camera I wish to use again. I deliberately saved this particular body for just this type of period way back when most of the world had not even heard of digital photography. I can't control the camera is not simpler and from an earlier time period. Photography played no part in my life back then. In saying all this, I don't just shoot in multi segment mode using autofocus lenses 100% of the time. In fact, I've never had a lens on a F5 that has used a focus motor. This will be a new experience for me.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> Film is film, with or without LCD.  I don't know but maybe film isn't for you if a small LCD screen is so critical that you can't shoot film without it.



LCD is not critical but the joy of using a specific camera and film is what makes film still an attractive option. This along with the challenge of creating high quality images without any of the aids a digital camera provides. I also have no intention on post processing anything digitally I shoot with film. Defeats the purpose of using film at all. Who here processes their film pics? Why? Might as well shoot digital.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> LCD is not critical but the joy of using a specific camera and film is what makes film still an attractive option. This along with the challenge of creating high quality images without any of the aids a digital camera provides. I also have no intention on post processing anything digitally I shoot with film. Defeats the purpose of using film at all. Who here processes their film pics? Why? Might as well shoot digital.



I think a more accurate title for this thread is "Did I just witness the end of me going back to film using my Nikon F5 because I can't use that camera without the LCD screen".


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> I think a more accurate title for this thread is "Did I just witness the end of me going back to film using my Nikon F5 because I can't use that camera without the LCD screen".



I would love to see some of your and other film users negs and slides! They would tell the story, the comments in this particular thread don't. lol


----------



## ac12 (Feb 4, 2018)

timor said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > If the LCD on you F5 is failing, and this a major issue for you.
> ...



Then go up 1 step to a match needle meter.
You can still fall back to full manual.


----------



## JonA_CT (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > I think a more accurate title for this thread is "Did I just witness the end of me going back to film using my Nikon F5 because I can't use that camera without the LCD screen".
> ...



LOL.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > I think a more accurate title for this thread is "Did I just witness the end of me going back to film using my Nikon F5 because I can't use that camera without the LCD screen".
> ...




From a few shoots ago...


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > I think a more accurate title for this thread is "Did I just witness the end of me going back to film using my Nikon F5 because I can't use that camera without the LCD screen".
> ...



Random work stuff in the last few months, Pentax 645nii, or 645 with 75mm f2.8, 67 90mm f2.8, or 67 105 f2.4.  Portra 160 & 400.  I don't think I looked at the LCD screen on either of my Pentax's once in any of these shoots.


----------



## timor (Feb 4, 2018)

ac12 said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > ac12 said:
> ...


Hi. I was referring to OP's earlier comments.
When comes to me, I guess, I am this iron hardcore. Lol 
I shoot only b&w film and don't use in-built light meters but handheld (OK, digital) spot light meter. Also develop myself and print in the darkroom. But that is me and my hobby.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> F5 Penguin said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



Well they don't tell me much! I would like to see if you nail exposure regularly. Not just one roll where you might've taken the entire roll in the same lighting and the one same exposure was ideal for the entire roll. You mess exposure up you mess color balance up. It's all a skill to get right with any camera. I'd love to see where you had some metering challenges. How good are the negs??? Did you meter well or should you have been using a LCD point and shoot film SLR to give you a little help???

Nothing you can post here. Easy to pull a few good rolls. Anyone can do that. I'd like to print your work regularly, that would tell me.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Well they don't tell me much! I would like to see if you nail exposure regularly. Not just one roll where you might've taken the entire roll in the same lighting and the one same exposure was ideal for the entire roll. You mess exposure up you mess color balance up. It's all a skill to get right with any camera. I'd love to see where you had some metering challenges. How good are the negs??? Did you meter well or should you have been using a LCD point and shoot film SLR to give you a little help???
> 
> Nothing you can post here. Easy to pull a few good rolls. Anyone can do that. I'd like to print your work regularly, that would tell me.



Scroll up a bit and read son.  Based on what you said here, you have NO place to even talk about film.  You are a noob in film.  Maybe you should talk a bit less and listen a bit more, then you will learn something.  I'm no expert so I just let my work speaks for itself.

Photos of my printed photos


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

Vtec44 I just viewed your pics. Second last image has an underexposed neg. Can tell you that without seeing the negs. If the neg is not underexposed, you been processing in Photoshop. There are lots of things you can see if you know what you are looking at.

Edit: I would place my money with this image on the neg being underexposed personally.


----------



## JonA_CT (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Vtec44 I just viewed your pics. Second last image has an underexposed neg. Can tell that without seeing the negs. If the neg is not underexposed, you been processing in Photoshop. There are lots of things you can see if you know what you are looking at.



Time to post your work and show us that you can back your **** up.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Vtec44 I just viewed your pics. Second last image has an underexposed neg. Can tell that without seeing the negs. If the neg is not underexposed, you been processing in Photoshop. There are lots of things you can see if you know what you are looking at.



Do you know why it was under exposed and why I rather under expose than a blurry image?  I'm old, correct exposure of that would be around 1/60 shutter speed with Portra 400 with the sun  already below the horizon.  I shot it at around 1/125 to avoid motion blur because I can't shoot it below 1/90 and get a clear image and told the my lab about it.  So, nice try.

If you worry about exposure with film then you should probably talk a bit less.  It's the easiest thing to nail in film.  I worry about focus a lot more than exposure LOL  The AF system on these old medium format cameras suck donkey balls compare to my Nikon DSLR's.  My eye sight isn't that great so even with split image focus screen for manual focus, it's sketchy.  You shouldn't have any excuse with your F5, focus or exposure, with or w/o LCD.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

Oh, you mean the noob who knows nothing about film miraculously guessed your exposure was out on a neg by looking at a digital pic on his computer monitor??? Going to go buy a lottery ticket! Having a hot day!

It's a good 1-2 stops out, would need to see the neg to be certain.

Now, don't go getting all ruffled. Deliberate over and underexposure is a part of photography. You can look at the technical but you must also look at the creative reasoning and circumstance. I never said this made you a bad photographer or the image was poor. I just let you know I can see.

Jon, no intention on posting a pic or pics. No reason for me to do so. Read the text and make up your own mind if I know what I'm talking about or not.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Oh, you mean the noob who knows nothing about film miraculously guessed your exposure was out on a neg by looking at a digital pic on his computer monitor??? Going to go buy a lottery ticket! Having a hot day!



Eh, you can guess that with digitals too.  What's new, except you with film?   You talk too much like a lot of people on this forum.  You should fit right in.  Talk is cheap.  Show some work. LOL


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> Eh, you can guess that with digitals too.  What's new, except you with film?   You talk too much like a lot of people on this forum.  You should fit right in.  Talk is cheap.  Show some work. LOL



You are highly entertaining I must admit! lol


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> You are highly entertaining I must admit! lol



Entertaining and with with a lot of photos to show.  I'm a photographer, not a person who talks about photography but never show any of my photos.


----------



## limr (Feb 4, 2018)

Okay, folks.

@Vtec44 Calm down, you have nothing to prove.

@F5 Penguin This is the second thread you've started about film that is attracting moderator attention. In both threads, you have put forth contradictory arguments and have generally been snide and aggressive in your responses. This is not an auspicious start for a newcomer to TPF.

Let me remind folks to go ahead, have discussions and disagree, no problem, but please avoid turning discussions into contests to determine who can urinate farther.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

limr said:


> Okay, folks.
> 
> @Vtec44 Calm down, you have nothing to prove.



I’m always calm just a bit direct because I don’t like beating around the bushes  

Speaking of urination............. I’m totally kidding!!!


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

limr said:


> Okay, folks.
> 
> @Vtec44 Calm down, you have nothing to prove.
> 
> ...



I'm certainly calm and a bit of sarcasm or snide shouldn't be a major offense. I fail to see the contradictions but we all have different opinions we should be able to express.

As for who can urinate the furthest, I was having quite a good time with @Vtec44 and quite like him. As far as I'm concerned it was a bit of fun. I hope @Vtec44 saw this the same way?

Photography forums are very quiet, I would hate to see nothing but boring and bland in the discussions. Guess my 3rd thread will need to wait???


----------



## ac12 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Jon, no intention on posting a pic or pics. No reason for me to do so. Read the text and make up your own mind if I know what I'm talking about or not.



hmm
"No intention on posting a pic or pics," despite wanting other to post pics.
That is a rather one-sided position to take.
Do you have any pics to even post?  Maybe not?

So what is wrong with boring and bland discussions?


----------



## terri (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> I'm certainly calm and a bit of sarcasm or snide shouldn't be a major offense.


As it happens, it's not a major offense, in and of itself.   But when a newcomer to the forum seems interested in keeping his own threads juiced up, that newcomer is going to have the attention of the moderators.

If you find TPF boring and bland, maybe you're not a good fit here.   There's plenty of discussion and image sharing going on, and you've stated you're not going to share your work.   You're already limiting yourself to offering up only your thoughts and opinions.   Again, not against the guidelines, but beware of showing up just to rile people up for your entertainment.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Feb 4, 2018)

My LCD screen is doing great


----------



## Derrel (Feb 4, 2018)

Wondering what is so great about the Nikon F5? Is it the cheap battery tray that malfunctions so often, and the eight AA-cells the tray needs? Is it the massive size and weight? Is it the in-built film advance and shutter cocking system? As a long-time Nikon fan (going back to the 1970's), I totally never, ever "got" the allure of the F5. I shot the F3HP and FE-2 from the mid-1980's until the early 2000's, and really liked the F3-HP and FE-2. I also liked the FM quite a bit, and shot a 1977-era FM for a long time. I've owned and used the Nikon F meterless, the F with the Photomic FTN prism, the F2, the F2A, and the F2ASb, and the FE-2,FM-2(n), and the FE , the FE-2, and the F3HP, and the Nikon N90s. Again....never have I been a fan of the F4 nor the F5...both were just not what I wanted.

I think if you want to preserve an F5 supply in perpetuity, perhaps seal and deep-freeze a trio of them? Would that work? Wouldn't that slow down the deterioration of the LCD? Might it be possible to get 10 to 15 years out of each one, after it had been un-frozen? I honestly do not know if this would be workable or not.

As far as it goes, I've only owned one Nikon film camera that used an LCD, and that was the Nikon N90s that I bought around 2005 or so I guess it was, back when film camera prices had plummeted to near historical lows. Ehhhh...the N90s got hit with that awful "sticky back" syndrome from that atrocious 1990's era body coating Nikon switched to! No, wait--I have a cheap Canon Rebel 35mm film camera someplace around here...think it has an LCD?

Anyway...I really think there's no basis whatsoever for insisting that the majority of film shooters today cannot get a decent exposure without a multi-segment meter. I think that's basically an unproven claim at the best, and a false and condemning bit of nonsense at the worst; regardless of how people do their light metering, it's the final pictures that matter most. Hand-held metering doesn't impress me much. I learned first on hand-held metering, since my first several cameras were very old (1940's and 1950's) and were ALL meter-free and all-mechanical. Argoflex TLR from 1940, 1954 Kodak Pony 135-B, Argus C3 from the early 50's, etc..

As far as the end of film: I think 35mm film loaded in cartridges will be around for a fairly long time, but I can envision the price of it going pretty high!


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

ac12 said:


> "No intention on posting a pic or pics," despite wanting other to post pics.
> That is a rather one-sided position to take.
> Do you have any pics to even post?  Maybe not?
> 
> So what is wrong with boring and bland discussions?



At no point have I asked anyone to post pics. I have suggested seeing someone's negatives but this is only in discussion, in reality there is no expectation for it to happen. Plenty of members here who do not post pics, I've looked!

@terri correct, I am contemplating if I am a good fit here as well. Planned on changing my avatar as the camera was only a temp one till I came up with something else but yet it's still there. It's not about rile, it's about discussion. Anyhow, decision will be made very soon regarding my posting future here.

@Derrel F5 is a camera, it is others who dramatizing my need for this particular body. I want to use it for the reasons I stated. It was the camera I used during the most important part of my film life. Naturally it make sense it will be the camera I would wish to use again today does it not?
As for it's lack of merits, we would simply be arguing as your opinion is very different to mine. Imo it's the best camera I have ever used and I've used quite a few.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 4, 2018)

Well...if you like the F5, you'd love my favorite d-slr, the Nikon D3x. Best. Camera. Nikon. Has. Ever.Made. Not the best sensor, but the best camera!

I get it, you are fond of the F5. It was a flagship-level camera. And those have all been very high-end, capable machines, the _ne plus ultra_ of their era of manufacture.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

@Derrel Failed to mention,  I can assure you people can't meter but again, people simply want to argue with no basis behind their argument. You are guessing, I am telling you from experience that I am right! lol


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Well...if you like the F5, you'd love my favorite d-slr, the Nikon D3x. Best. Camera. Nikon. Has. Ever.Made. Not the best sensor, but the best camera!


D3X is my current digital body. Second best camera, F5 was better than D3X all things being equal.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Feb 4, 2018)

Isn’t the d3 and the subsequent bodies the F5 with a digital sensor?


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

@Derrel Oh, N90s, have one of those too. Must agree for once on the sticky back, terrible. Camera itself was excellent. Probably the best feel in your hand camera I have ever owned. Much preferred over both F5 and D3X. Feel is just personal preference, everyones hands are different.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

SoulfulRecover said:


> Isn’t the d3 and the subsequent bodies the F5 with a digital sensor?



Yes, I believe you are right. F5 to D3 bodies, it's a very simple transition.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> I can assure you people can't meter but again, people simply want to argue with no basis behind their argument.



You people can't meter?  In what way?


----------



## Dave442 (Feb 4, 2018)

I don't think you have to retire the F5, but pick up a DSLR and give it a spin.

I sure miss some of my old film cameras, but I just have to pull out the DSLR and I forget about those cameras.


----------



## ac12 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> @Derrel Failed to mention,  I can assure you people can't meter but again, people simply want to argue with no basis behind their argument. You are guessing, I am telling you from experience that I am right! lol



Here we go again ...


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 4, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> F5 Penguin said:
> 
> 
> > I can assure you people can't meter but again, people simply want to argue with no basis behind their argument.
> ...



Ok, back in the early 90's I printed amateur and professional films. Consumer stuff downstairs, professional stuff upstairs. I was a qualified A Grade printer back then.
Now, be it average every day Joe/Jane that walks in with his/her compact or the serious amateur photographer, easily 80-90% of these negs were underexposed. There were a few regulars that came in that created beautifully exposed film. I learned their names fast and it was always a pleasure to see them come in through the door. This was back in the day when multi segment metering was not really around, most people were using center weighted cameras if they were serious amateurs. Pros of course were a completely different story regarding exposure.
The other thing of interest that surprised me back then, around the same percentage were photos of naked males v naked females. Maybe 10-15% were naked females. I've seen every size and shape of the male anatomy on planet Earth! Women aren't as innocent as people think! lol


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 4, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Ok, back in the early 90's I printed amateur and professional films. Consumer stuff downstairs, professional stuff upstairs. I was a qualified A Grade printer back then.
> Now, be it average every day Joe/Jane that walks in with his/her compact or the serious amateur photographer, easily 80-90% these negs were underexposed. There were a few regulars that came in that created beautifully exposed film. I learned their names fast and it was always a pleasure to see them come in through the door. This was back in the day when multi segment metering was not really around, most people were using center weighted cameras if they were serious amateurs. Pros of course were a completely different story regarding exposure.
> The other thing of interest that surprised me back then, around the same percentage where photos of naked males v naked females. Maybe 10-15% were naked females. I've seen every size and shape of the male anatomy on planet Earth! Women aren't as innocent as people think! lol



What does all that have  anything to do with making an assumption that you people can't meter?  Who are the "you people" that you're referring to?


----------



## limr (Feb 5, 2018)

Keep it civil. Seriously. I asked you once already.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 5, 2018)

Just to clarify a point as it was removed from elsewhere. I made a comment to Vtec44:

"I can assure you people can't meter but again, people simply want to argue with no basis behind their argument."

It was a general comment that was intended in this way. The "you" referred to Vtec44, not the people of this forum. I was assuring "Vtec44" that I know people generally can't meter. It was intended to be read as "I assure you" and not "You people." 
I was not implying anyone on this forum specifically can't meter. Hope that clears it up.

Please do not make any more replies and send them in my direction. This forum is not for me. All the best to all of you.


----------



## SquarePeg (Feb 5, 2018)

A comma would have clarified that nicely.  I can assure you, people don’t use punctuation as often as they should.


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 5, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> OMG. Ok. I hope my posts give you guys a chuckle because yours certainly do give me a little chuckle! lol
> 
> Now, down to business:
> 
> ...


I sunny 16 the majority of my stuff. Use a meter on rare occasion. Working pretty good for me. I've got pretty good results. As far as Leica film camera, pretty hard to beat their glass.


----------



## limr (Feb 5, 2018)

SquarePeg said:


> A comma would have clarified that nicely.  I can assure you, people don’t use punctuation as often as they should.



Preach.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 5, 2018)

SquarePeg said:


> A comma would have clarified that nicely.  I can assure you, people don’t use punctuation as often as they should.



YOUR absolutely right.


----------



## limr (Feb 5, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > A comma would have clarified that nicely.  I can assure you, people don’t use punctuation as often as they should.
> ...


----------



## JonA_CT (Feb 5, 2018)

limr said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > A comma would have clarified that nicely.  I can assure you, people don’t use punctuation as often as they should.
> ...


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 5, 2018)

By, the, way ... does, anyone, have, a, spare, Lumigrid, for, my, Sekonic, L-328, light, meter ?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 5, 2018)

SquarePeg said:
			
		

> A comma would have clarified that nicely.  I can assure you, people don’t use punctuation as often as they should.



Yes, punctuation can make a huge difference in the meaning of even the most simple sentences. Two examples that stress the importance of a comma immediately spring to mind, with the first example being the classic, "I'm hungry! Let's eat Grandma." The better-punctuated sentence would read, "I'm hungry! Let's eat, Grandma." The second example demonstrating the importance of a comma is, "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse," and the more commonly-needed sentence being, "I helped my uncle, Jack, off a horse."


----------



## vin88 (Feb 6, 2018)

timor said:


> F5 Penguin said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to post this in my other thread and started typing but then thought it really is a topic of it's own. Quoted is the last post made by another member in the thread I was going to respond too before I thought a new thread may be required.
> ...


----------



## vin88 (Feb 6, 2018)

YES,  film will survive,  electronic film cameras will not [unless you are an electronic engeer].  Nikon F (below F3) can be repaired or maintained.  the best color film was Fugi,   and Kodac tri x pan was good.  cheers,  vin


----------



## gsgary (Feb 18, 2018)

Braineack said:


> they still make record albums for some reason too.


Because they sound better than cd

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## petrochemist (Feb 18, 2018)

My oldest camera is still capable of producing photographs even at nearly 80 years old. 
Even if they stop producing film I would be able to use my 5x4 camera to produce analogue photographs using homemade materials. It might take a lot of effort but I know I can do it. Being a chemist I could probably create my own film as well - though I'm sure it wouldn't be as good as the mass produced stuff.

I have used a 10 year old digital camera, but I rather doubt any digital camera will still be working by the time it's as old as my box brownie.

Film is actually making a comeback despite the advantages of digital, because people like using it.


----------



## vin88 (Feb 18, 2018)

petrochemist said:


> My oldest camera is still capable of producing photographs even at nearly 80 years old.
> Even if they stop producing film I would be able to use my 5x4 camera to produce analogue photographs using homemade materials. It might take a lot of effort but I know I can do it. Being a chemist I could probably create my own film as well - though I'm sure it wouldn't be as good as the mass produced stuff.
> 
> I have used a 10 year old digital camera, but I rather doubt any digital camera will still be working by the time it's as old as my box brownie.
> ...


   you can buy film for your camera.  the formula for  sensitive  layer on a glass plate as used by A.Adams  is available.  one of the ingredients is "egg whites".  vin


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 12, 2018)

I dunno. Film still has that cult following. While the end is approaching, it's still got a cult following (yes, I said we are all members of a cult). That cult following will eventually die off (literally), leaving our next generation, generation NOW, to abandon it or relegate it to special hobbyist only use. That's my theory.

Sent from my [device_name] using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 12, 2018)

minicoop1985 said:


> I dunno. Film still has that cult following. While the end is approaching, it's still got a cult following (yes, I said we are all members of a cult). That cult following will eventually die off (literally), leaving our next generation, generation NOW, to abandon it or relegate it to special hobbyist only use. That's my theory.
> 
> Sent from my [device_name] using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


I'm not so sure. I was recently told that younger people are really interested in analog photography. As a result, sales of analog equipment, film, and related sundries are rising. The brick and mortar stores that are poo pooing this, telling the customer that film is dead, are throwing away thousands of potential revenue. This brick & mortar store tracks revenue the best they can. Film related revenue is in the tens of thousands, additional. He also claims that he regularly gets new customers from the other brick & mortar store that poo poos film. He said he generates profit from film, used equipment, papers, chemicals, and printing services. He claims that film has rejuvenated his business. It is providing additional revenue and service offerings that significantly adds to profit.


----------



## cgw (Mar 12, 2018)

jcdeboever said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno. Film still has that cult following. While the end is approaching, it's still got a cult following (yes, I said we are all members of a cult). That cult following will eventually die off (literally), leaving our next generation, generation NOW, to abandon it or relegate it to special hobbyist only use. That's my theory.
> ...



He's lucky. The film tide went out and stayed there nearly a decade ago in many other places. For all the cheerleading about a "film" revival, I'm not seeing new labs or film supplies offered where they once were. What I do see are a couple of shops/labs doing well with film sales and processing that are known widely as "about the only places to go."

I'm not seeing piles of potential revenue being ignored; instead, I'm seeing 0ne or two shops catering profitably to a residual market that's stable but not expanding wildly.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 12, 2018)

My local camera store has a lab, but they SUCK at scanning and their chemicals never get changed. There's a lab local to me that's great, mainly does one time use cameras, but does a MUCH better job. Only problem is they are closing this spring. The owner still plans to keep his Noritsu operational though, and he and I happen to be good friends, so there's hope.

Sent from my [device_name] using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 12, 2018)

cgw said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > minicoop1985 said:
> ...



This is probably accurate as a whole. The stores I'm referring to are near college towns that teach film photography, so they probably benefit in markets like that. I don't use them for processing or scanning. I tried them with color film two times and they are real poor with the scan part. You could literally see the scan lines where was inching along.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Mar 12, 2018)

We have a couple shops here in Austin. One, I do not like their attitude and vibe, One is willing to work with you one on one and go the extra mile in every sense and the other is fairly good, just depends on the kids working there. Due to location, I end up at the one that's fairly good and make due with their scans. If I could afford to send out my film to a full lab that scans and edits your work, I totally would. But I don't feel like my work is worth that much.


----------



## webestang64 (Mar 12, 2018)

Here in St. Louis......
Our labs C-41 has picked up a bit but is stable as to the number of rolls coming in, about 75-100 rolls a week. Low count weeks are still around 30-40 but we have been running "Film Amnesty" discounts for multiple rolls. 

Here is a chart of my personal BW labs roll count per month. Did pick up slightly last year. Those sections with ER were a special project so I included both normal roll count and with ER's added.
Click to enlarge.


----------



## espresso2x (Mar 12, 2018)

It's no longer a mass market but that doesn't mean it's dead. It's scaled back and niche. 



cgw said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > minicoop1985 said:
> ...


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 12, 2018)

I believe that we can excel in analog, to deliver an acceptable image. I believe that the analog image produces a better look. I believe that I am an idiot and I want to make whatever I want.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 12, 2018)

I was really talking about the kids who are 6-8 or so, which I call generation NOW.

Sent from my [device_name] using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Wolffn (Apr 9, 2018)

Your are probably correct; all of us oldies will die off just like the old cameras. Fuji, I have read, make a nice profit off their instant cameras though. So maybe there’s some sort of a future for film -  an arty Lomo type future. I have bought half a dozen film cameras in the last 6 months and I am really enjoying the film experience. I will keep going for as long as I have a working film camera, film and a means of processing it.


----------

