[RobA_Oz]

Perhaps some parts are the same, but the mirror and the shutter don't have the same size (APS-C versus FF) and the placement and size of the parts and electronics can't be the same too...

Ah, yes, of course. How easy it is to forget these little details.

[Ontarian50]

Perhaps some parts are the same, but the mirror and the shutter don't have the same size (APS-C versus FF) and the placement and size of the parts and electronics can't be the same too...

Yes, and one thing often overlooked is that digital bodies are often much more durable than their film predecessors. I'd be surprised if a basic camera like the *ist and others in its class back in the mid-'90s-2000's were designed to last much more than an average of 20,000 exposures or so.

That doesn't sound like much today, but that was at least 500+ rolls of film, and the average customer of cameras like that would probably never shoot more than 20 rolls of film through it a year. If you shot more than that, you probably had more than one camera body. At that rate, the camera would last 25-30 years, perhaps (and we all know of plenty that have died before that level of wear and tear). Plastic gears, and other inexpensive, lightweight assemblies couldn't be expected to go the distance like a bigger, heavier, more costly pro-oriented body (for the photographer who would shoot five rolls a film a day).

Early digital bodies wore out their shutters and mirror mechanisms pretty quickly, even if they didn't have to transport film, and were expected to go 50k exposures - because their owners were literally shooting ten times as much as they did with film. Fortunately, those buyers didn't gripe much because they were quickly moving on to higher megapixel, better featured new offerings. But the manufacturers quickly realized they had to come up with more efficient ways to make shutters and mirror boxes last 80-100k exposures.

Those lessons could be transplanted onto a newer issue film body, although there's been no comparable development of film transports for better reliability - and that's where many of the low cost film bodies fell down.

[TwoUptons]

Yes, and one thing often overlooked is that digital bodies are often much more durable than their film predecessors. I'd be surprised if a basic camera like the *ist and others in its class back in the mid-'90s-2000's were designed to last much more than an average of 20,000 exposures or so.

That doesn't sound like much today, but that was at least 500+ rolls of film, and the average customer of cameras like that would probably never shoot more than 20 rolls of film through it a year. If you shot more than that, you probably had more than one camera body. At that rate, the camera would last 25-30 years, perhaps (and we all know of plenty that have died before that level of wear and tear). Plastic gears, and other inexpensive, lightweight assemblies couldn't be expected to go the distance like a bigger, heavier, more costly pro-oriented body (for the photographer who would shoot five rolls a film a day).

Early digital bodies wore out their shutters and mirror mechanisms pretty quickly, even if they didn't have to transport film, and were expected to go 50k exposures - because their owners were literally shooting ten times as much as they did with film. Fortunately, those buyers didn't gripe much because they were quickly moving on to higher megapixel, better featured new offerings. But the manufacturers quickly realized they had to come up with more efficient ways to make shutters and mirror boxes last 80-100k exposures.

Those lessons could be transplanted onto a newer issue film body, although there's been no comparable development of film transports for better reliability - and that's where many of the low cost film bodies fell down.

Though would you need 500 rolls worth of reliability on a new film body?
Are people really putting that much film through things these days?

I think very few high-volume pros would be going back to film...

-Eric

[Reciprocity]

I didn't spoke from DSLR *ist (-D, -DS) but film SLR *ist like this one :

Nice picture.

[fs999]

Nice picture.

Thank you !

[Reciprocity]

Thank you !

You're welcome.

[leekil]

Yeah, I don't quite get the interest in resurrected slide film. It's not like Kodak's going to bring back the Carousel projectors to go along with it.

Well, if the people taking the photos are using out-of-production film cameras, they can also get an out-of-production slide projector to go along with it...

[womble]

Well, if the people taking the photos are using out-of-production film cameras, they can also get an out-of-production slide projector to go along with it...

There are boatloads of those around. Film cameras may have seen a resurgence in interest, but slide projectors not so much. I wonder what the availability of bulbs is like...

Completely off topic, but back in 1996 I helped organise a conference in a former eastern block country. We needed 3 slide projectors. I found dozens of them in various peoples offices and cupboards, but very few had working bulbs! I eventually managed to scrape together enough for the conference.

[Reciprocity]

There are boatloads of those around. Film cameras may have seen a resurgence in interest, but slide projectors not so much. I wonder what the availability of bulbs is like...

Completely off topic, but back in 1996 I helped organise a conference in a former eastern block country. We needed 3 slide projectors. I found dozens of them in various peoples offices and cupboards, but very few had working bulbs! I eventually managed to scrape together enough for the conference.

This story makes me nostalgic for slide projectors. ;-)

[womble]

This story makes me nostalgic for slide projectors. ;-)

As much as I am a fan of film photography, and still sometimes have a slide show, I really don't miss slides for teaching. They took ages to make, ages to sort into lectures, then ages to put back in their hanging files. Some that I used regularly started to fade... ugh. I used to spend hours and hours sorting slides for lectures. We had a brilliant photographer who spent a great deal of his time photographing images from books for people's lectures. I used to get him to set me up in the studio so I could do my own as I had more than enough photos of his thumb holding the page of a book open.

[Ontarian50]

Well, if the people taking the photos are using out-of-production film cameras, they can also get an out-of-production slide projector to go along with it...

What I was implying, in a roundabout kind of way, is that Kodak isn't going to be bringing back the Carousel projectors because nobody would want them. While there's interest in transparency film, with a belief it brings something special to the experience, nobody's really planning on projecting them up on a screen anyway (yes, there will be a few diehards out there who seek out an old projector that still works, and a screen that hasn't gone yellow). The last 10 years I shot slide film, pretty much none of them went inside my projector - they all got scanned and enjoyed on a computer screen, or turned into nice inkjet prints. I face the fact that I could have more easily shot negative film, and still scanned and printed. Any special qualities my transparency film had, could likely have been equaled by colour, saturation, etc. adjustments in Photoshop.

What the newbie millennial photographer imagines they will get from cracking open a box of re-minted Ektachrome baffles me. Their images will be scanned and put up on a computer screen 99.9% of the time.

[gofour3]

This story makes me nostalgic for slide projectors. ;-)

Well, if the people taking the photos are using out-of-production film cameras, they can also get an out-of-production slide projector to go along with it...

There are boatloads of those around. Film cameras may have seen a resurgence in interest, but slide projectors not so much. I wonder what the availability of bulbs is like...

What I was implying, in a roundabout kind of way, is that Kodak isn't going to be bringing back the Carousel projectors because nobody would want them.

I still use my Kodak Carousel projector every couple months. I bought some extra bulbs and a second projector lens from eBay and they are pretty easy to find.

I was also talking to one of the people in my film processing lab and she said millennials like to have slide shows while camping using a projector and a white sheet for the screen.
Go figure...

Phil.

[Ontarian50]

I was also talking to one of the people in my film processing lab and she said millennials like to have slide shows while camping using a projector and a white sheet for the screen.
Go figure...

Phil.

Pretty funny. Sounds like that 0.1% hard at work.

But we're behind the times here in Ontario. The campgrounds have yet to outfit all trees with outlets to plug in our slide projectors.

[TwoUptons]

What I was implying, in a roundabout kind of way, is that Kodak isn't going to be bringing back the Carousel projectors because nobody would want them. While there's interest in transparency film, with a belief it brings something special to the experience, nobody's really planning on projecting them up on a screen anyway (yes, there will be a few diehards out there who seek out an old projector that still works, and a screen that hasn't gone yellow). The last 10 years I shot slide film, pretty much none of them went inside my projector - they all got scanned and enjoyed on a computer screen, or turned into nice inkjet prints. I face the fact that I could have more easily shot negative film, and still scanned and printed. Any special qualities my transparency film had, could likely have been equaled by colour, saturation, etc. adjustments in Photoshop.

What the newbie millennial photographer imagines they will get from cracking open a box of re-minted Ektachrome baffles me. Their images will be scanned and put up on a computer screen 99.9% of the time.

I just shot a roll of the new Ektachrome.

It did look really good, with excellent color and pretty much no grain. Wonderful results.
My daughter (who is almost 8) was fascinated by the slides and a little vintage viewer I have...

By the time I bought the film and had it developed and scanned, it was also $45. I won't be doing that again soon...

I can get very close to the same results (minus some post processing) with some Ektar for a lot less...

And apparently there are these new digital cameras that do OK...

-Eric

[Reciprocity]

I still use my Kodak Carousel projector every couple months. I bought some extra bulbs and a second projector lens from eBay and they are pretty easy to find.

I was also talking to one of the people in my film processing lab and she said millennials like to have slide shows while camping using a projector and a white sheet for the screen.
Go figure...

Phil.

People always search for simplicity. Give kids the most sophisticated electronic gadgets, but when they find a simple stick, they will play with it. It is human nature.