[StiffLegged]

… And the world-wide film shortage complicates matters.

Just not going to happen without resurrecting Kodachrome.

[Lord Lucan]

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/kodak-launches-a-disposable-camera-l...i-x-400tx-film

Exactly what the world needs? More plastic in the garbage.

[BigMackCam]

the world-wide film shortage complicates matters.

Hopefully that's a temporary situation. As disruption to the supply chain reduces or is resolved altogether, production and distribution should get back to where it was pre-pandemic. Whether the prices will revert, stabilise at their new higher levels, or rise further still is less certain...

[UncleVanya]

Exactly what the world needs? More plastic in the garbage.

Typically in the past I thought the cameras were returned for refurbishment and reloading. But I haven’t looked at the plans on this one.

[house]

Typically in the past I thought the cameras were returned for refurbishment and reloading. But I haven’t looked at the plans on this one.

I can't imagine they would get a way with binning the cameras after one use. Especially as recycling them was established ages ago.

[jumbleview]

I myself dream about SLR film camera with ability to auto focus and set exposure in the manner modern cameras allow but film transport to be manual. ( I am not sure that such a camera was ever made). Such camera will give retro feeling but at the same time modern in other way. And battery will last for a long.

[nitehntr]

I wanted to post this under the Pentax SLR forum sub-section, but this isn't Pentax specific in spite of a Spotmatic being anonymously featured in the cover picture. That said, a study published in PetaPixel says there is a global demand for new film cameras and that demand is growing. https://petapixel.com/2021/12/06/new-study-confirms-there-is-still-demand-for-new-film-cameras/ The text refers to the Canon/Nikon struggle for supremacy (whoever those guys are . . .) but it does raise the question of whether Ricoh/Pentax would be well advised to pursue a full-featured 35mm film camera. Or resurrect the 6x7?

I appreciate the argument that there are exactly 11.84 gazillion used cameras out there looking for new homes and fresh film, but they are, frankly, getting old and service isn't getting easier for them. Lomo may have the bottom end of the market sewn up but what about a contemporary version of the LX or another fine vintage body (the ME series comes to mind given its tiny footprint)? If nothing else, there has been substantial progress in materials science since the last Spotmatic departed the factory and electronic devices have become ubiquitous (think of what could be packed into an old body; will someone call for WiFi so you can link your phone?).

Maybe a solid, bare-bones all mechanical approach would be better. Something immune to the ravages of time that devour electronics?

Of course, this could be wild speculation on ways to implicate our favourite manufacturer in a hopeless direction that would satisfy only a handful of alt-film radicals . . . Maybe I'll leave it here.

Bernie's Camera and Photo in Pittsburgh runs what they call the Pittsburgh camera exchange and they have film cameras of every brand and format imaginable stacked on the shelves, all in great condition, and lenses and other accessories to go with them. we go to Pittsburgh a lot and I usually stop in looking for stuff for my half ass Pentax collection and nearly always find something. I go back to the Spotmatic and a black and white dark room and Kodachrome slides, and the only thing that would get my film cameras back in action would be Kodachrome coming back and the EPA has ensured that its never going to happen. I only miss one thing about a darkroom and that's watching the picture come up in the tray. the ease of photoshop and the undo button far more than make up for that. anyone who wants to shoot film more power to them. if someone's happy i'm happy for them. not my place to judge. oh and I almost forgot there is also a camera repair shop near the PPG center and they have a huge supply of used film cameras also.

[ChrisPlatt]

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/kodak-launches-a-disposable-camera-l...i-x-400tx-film

Great idea.

Low cost entry point to recruit new film users.
That can only be a good thing!

I'll get one to keep in my car's glove compartment.

Ilford has offered an HP5+ disposable for years...

Chris

[DamienW]

Well...beards are back in, so who knows.

[LesDMess]

In 2001, Nikon released a full mechanical camera and they documented this in Nikon FM3A

The design team consisted of 12 people and development started in December 1998 and available for sale in July 2001 for 96,000yen. Really interesting to read about the hurdles of implementing an ammeter needle to show exposure, "A used FE2 was procured from a second-hand camera shop and it was dismantled and the ammeter was removed. It was found that the compact-sized and high-precision ammeter that Nikon was seeking to design was built largely based on hand work. The real ammeter removed from FE2 was shown to the engineers in the subcontractor and specific instructions were repeatedly provided." Also, "However, in the period of transition from manual focus to auto focus and digital control, the engineers competent to fabricate component parts for manual cameras were getting on toward the age of retirement. An engineer from the subcontractor engaged in the production of leather grain for FM3A was also getting close to retirement age. There is a story that he had ideas about retiring from the company, but he was reportedly prevented from leaving the company."

I really like that Nikon provided this historical documentation even if it has a lot of embellishments. So much so I bought that camera . . .

[DonV]

Very few folks in the general population would want or even consider using film again; and why would they? There are better, easier options today that give the average person a much better result at a very low price than they have ever seen in the past with film- not to mention the time factor and the ability to re-shoot immediately if something is wrong with the image.

Film seems important to the very few hard core aficionados who "want" it- but there are not enough of those to make film, processing, cameras, or repairs commercially viable.

Wishing, or hoping, or rationalizing why film could survive is just not "rational".

One guy wrote in a prior post that he didn't have 100 pounds to repair a film body- so how could one expect the average guy to spend even more for a new camera and then buy film and pay for processing, and then wait to see "what turned out" ?

I see posts regarding using film and then scanning the negatives for digital processing and/or printing- why not skip the film and go straight to digital? Images can't improve with the additional step from negative to digital scan; not
to mention getting a "chemically correct, well processed" negative in the first place? Photographers now are spoiled by taking scores, or hundreds of images and selecting the best- does anyone really expect to shoot even scores of film images of a single subject ?

No, I don't believe there is a market for a new film camera.

JMHO.

[LesDMess]

I see posts regarding using film and then scanning the negatives for digital processing and/or printing- why not skip the film and go straight to digital? Images can't improve with the additional step from negative to digital scan; not to mention getting a "chemically correct, well processed" negative in the first place?

Not obvious to the casual observer but "straight to digital" is not the same as taking a shot on film and then scanning. Film has very different characteristics then digital like for instance latitude. Notice that film overexposed by 10 stops is actually very usable specially compared to any dig even shot in RAW that is not even at +3 on.



Taking advantage of this characteristic, I purposely overexposed this shot on Fuji 100 that the camera recommended a shutter speed of 1/60 but I needed at least a two second long exposure in order to get the silky water effect during daylight hours . . .



Another is that with the film camera Pentax LX, I can take an aperture priority autoexposures for as long as it takes - literally . . .

This one on Kodak Ektar 100 that was about 45 minutes.



Yeah, taking a shot on film and scanning is not the same as just taking a digital shot because the film does the heavy lifting. Film chemical processing and scanning just allows the latent image to be realized. I am not waiting for either as I saw the image in my mind before I took the shot which is far sooner then a preview on the LCD after the shot . . .

[BigMackCam]

I see posts regarding using film and then scanning the negatives for digital processing and/or printing- why not skip the film and go straight to digital?

It's just different, Don.

Aside from shooting a few rolls of film years back that were developed by cheap supermarket labs well before I understood what I was doing, all of my photography and photographic learning has been with digital equipment... until very recently, that is, as I've started to get into film. There is something extremely satisfying about the whole process of capturing images onto film, loading it onto a reel and into the tank, mixing the chemistry, developing and drying the film, then digitising it. I dare say it's even more satisfying to use an enlarger and produce prints the old way without ever touching a computer, but that's a step too far for me at present. Still, I'm finding there's a magic to producing photos using film. It mat not be for everyone, and I don't deny it's much easier and more time-efficient to capture and process digitally, but there's great enjoyment to be had from the "craft" of it.

Furthermore, film responds differently than digital imaging sensors, and no matter how much work goes into producing tone curves in raw development tools that mimic film response to light, it's no more than a broad approximation at best.

In the music world, one might take a classic Gibson Les Paul guitar, play it through a Vox AC30 valve amplifier, mic that up and run it to an analogue mixing desk for recording. It's much easier to take any half decent modern electric guitar, run it straight into a digital effects processor with a Vox AC30 emulation, and run that straight to a computer... and to the casual listener, the results will be similar... but it's just not the same. Whether that matters is up to the individual

[reh321]

I wonder if there is any consensus out there on which old Pentax film bodies are still reliable. For example, I have 2 ME Supers and on both of them, the winder is stuck. I also have a couple of MX50's and the gears on the winder appear to be stripped, so they don't work either. What is left that might be reliable?

I have three old film cameras - amongst Pentaxes I do have a “Super Program” that I used for 12 years and a “Spotmatic” which I recently bought.

I could go back to film - but, frankly, I have no desire to.
Too many years already of not knowing what I really photographed until my {developed} film comes back.

[fs999]

A new Pentax SLR would be interesting with KAF4...