LANDMARK: Nikon stops prod. of all but 2 film cams

[chaoliang]

I was just about to post this. Not too surprising, even though Nikon was pretty big back in the film days. The tables have turned and Canon is dominating the digital market, so it makes sense for Nikon to put more resources to that division.

Funnily enough, I just bought a Canon film camera

What camera did you buy, LS?

The whole development against film cameras (Nikon giving up film cameras, Minolta giving up whole camera business, Konica giving up film production, Kodak closing factories...) makes me feeling uneasy. Actually I have been thinking about buying Canon film cameras for a while. I have a good film scanner (Nikon LS 5000) for digitalising films in quite good quality, and I still don't like the idea of investing so much on a full frame DSLR. I still use a Nikon film camera without autofocus. But sometimes I have the feeling, that the AF possibility could really bring some advantages.

[VJ]

I have a good film scanner (Nikon LS 5000) for digitalising films in quite good quality, and I still don't like the idea of investing so much on a full frame DSLR.

Why would you have to go full frame? There are many great cameras that have a crop factor (Nikon D70/D200, Canon 20D) that are much more affordable.

Unless you need wideangle, but every full frame DSLR suffers horribly from vignetting at the moment.


Jörg

[az]

Yeah, full frame is pretty much a marketing instrument at the moment, and will probably always be. APS-C size sensors are already very very good, and they certainly won't get worse.

If you're still happy with your film camera, don't rush to buy a digital. I would even still buy a Minolta SLR if I wanted one - there is a huge market for used SLR lenses for all brands, with some really good lenses at really great prices, and Sony will very likely keep producing DSLRs with the Minolta A mount. And Digital cameras still get cheaper and better all the time, so if you're happy with what you've got, there's really no reason to buy something else now.

[chaoliang]

Yes I think I should stay by film at least for a while. The thing that disturbs me sometimes is the lack of autofocus with my camera. I've looked around and realized, that if I switch to AF, I must switch to Canon, since Nikon doesn't provide affordable objectives with good, large maximum aperture any longer.

[az]

You should really have a look at the used lens market (i.e. ebay), and also at third party manufacturers such as Sigma, Tamron etc. While some of the third party glass is as bad as the price suggests, there are some really good lenses at good prices to be had. And a used Nikon AF Film body shouldn't cost that much either.

[chaoliang]

I'll check it, thanks!

[Liquid Snake]

chaoliang, I bought a Canon Elan 7N. It operates pretty similiarly to my Digital Rebel XT so I didn't have trouble getting used to the controls. Getting used to film after working with digital was another story I've put a couple of rolls through it, when I get some time I might post some pictures up here.

Also, I think you should stick with your MF film camera. If you're not shooting anything fast-paced, MF doesn't really get in the way of anything. The small sensor cameras are actually kind of disadvantaged when it comes to manual focus; the smaller viewfinder makes it more difficult.

A mini-rant about Canon lenses: when it comes to primes, it's usually a choice between a decent, small and cheap lens (like 35mm/f2) and a good but huge and incredibly expensive lens (35mm/f1.4L). I wish they had something in between Third-party lenses are usually fine as long as you stay away from the dirt-cheap stuff. Just do a bit of research on them and play around with one in a store before you buy. FWIW, my main digital lens is a Sigma 18-50/2.8. It works fine.

[chaoliang]

Liquid Snake, Elan 7N must be 30v on other continents. Hey, that's exactly the camera which I've been considering to buy! Did you enjoy using it? Does it feel comfortable in the hand with heavy lenses?

I've used MF for over 20 years. Though I'm generally satisfied with it, I still encounter from time to time situations under which I wish that I had AF - especially when photographing children or some quick-catch scence. I didn't move to AF earlier because I was not sure about its quality. Now it seems to be ripe enough.

As for the lenses: Since I have been using a 24mm/2.8, a 105/2.5 and a 180/2.8, I'm thinking about the Canon lenes 24/2.8 and the 100/2. They would be good and expansive enough for me. I agree with you about the prices. They also have a 24-70/2.8 L. Seems to be very nice but not affordable.

[Liquid Snake]

I don't have any large lenses, but it handles pretty well, so I don't think there would be any problems with longer telephotos. It's also one of the quieter SLR's around. I do have a 24/2.8 and it's pretty decent for a wide-angle. However it's an old 1990's design so it lacks later innovations like the ultrasonic focus motor. I haven't used a 100/2 but it should be fine (Canon is very good with telephoto).