backtop


Print 15 comment(s) - last by gentryfunk.. on Jan 16 at 6:47 PM

Nikon says goodbye to the market it helped to popularize

In a little more than ten years after its first baby steps into the digital age, Nikon's efforts have nearly put the final nail in the coffin for its film cameras. The company has decided to abandon its roots in the film camera industry and move full steam ahead with its ever expanding lineup of digital camera products.  The company is also seeing rising demand for digital SLR cameras as traditional film and P&S digital camera owners decide to upgrade.  Digital cameras now make up for 95% of Nikon's total camera sales. 

However, all is not lost for the hardcore Nikon film camera fans out there. According to Nikon, they will still manufacture the F6 (professiona) and FM10 (amateur) as well as the manual focus 85mm f/2.8D PC Micro-Nikkor lenses.  Support for these products will continue for ten years after Nikon's last date of sale.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I love my Nikon D70 + kit lens
By NFS4 on 1/13/2006 4:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
**Hugs his D70**




Nicons not going to hurt anyone with this move
By Realguns on 1/13/2006 6:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
When I heard they had an 8 megpixel CCD I knew the film camera was dead. Film is about 8 megapixels or so in resolution. Good thing is that the Nicon lens will fit the Digital Cameras to so no need to toss the kit just yet.


By Xenoterranos on 1/13/2006 6:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, there are still a ton of neat things a film camera can do that a digital one can't. Nothing the amature or wedding-photographer would be interested in though. Mostly hard-core professional art photographers and students.


Another thing...
By Xenoterranos on 1/13/2006 6:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
Unless someone figures out how to get a digital photo on paper through an "analog" process (eg, chemical), print quality will always be behind traditional photographs.


RE: Nicons not going to hurt anyone with this move
By Jackyl on 1/13/2006 6:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
You need to read some more about 35mm film. Although it is not digital, it has been compared to digital format at more than 50MP. Yes, 40MP. It has to do with the [b]fine grain of film.[/b] Digital is not there yet.

This is certainly true for anyone who owns professional slide scanners(35mm). The 35mm format has amazing detail. Nikon's 35mm scanners, scan 35mm at 4000DPI. This is about 30MP. Minolta has a scanner that is 5400DPI which is comparable to 40MP but I don't consider this "professional". You really need a [b]drum scanner[/b] for professional results. Then, there is [b]medium and large format films[/b] which have even more resolution.

I just don't understand why people think 35mm film is "low-resolution". If 35mm was only 8MP comparable, movies on the big-screen would look blurry.


By ProviaFan on 1/13/2006 7:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, not quite. 35mm film can be similar in resolution to 4 to 10MP digital, depending on the type of film (low ISO transparency film is best). Just because it is scanned at 40 to 80MP does not mean that there is actual data other than mostly film grain at that kind of DPI.


By NagoyaX on 1/13/2006 6:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
Im quite suprised u would say that since digital can never give the same quality of color replection as film!

and dont for get bout mid size film!


By Souka on 1/14/2006 1:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
8mp = 35mm?

But what about the 2in x 2in film that I've seen wedding photographers use? That's one big negative! What the equiv resolution on that?


Hehehe - this is funny stuff
By Enoch2001 on 1/13/2006 9:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
This reminds me of the CD/digital recordings versus vinyl/analong recordings debate: there are pros and cons to both, but the fact of the matter is -

FILM IS A DYING BREED.

It's the future, no doubt - sad but true. And whether or not you need 8MP or 50MP to capture film's resolution, the fact of the matter is that a newbie with a 4MP camera and Photoshop has much more power than a pro and his $5000 film camera and a chemical developing lab.

Any professional photographer worth their weight in salt knows how convenient and powerful digital cameras are nowadays - it's pretty much standard. National Geographic did an article recently on how digital photography has pretty much surpassed anything that they used to do with film cameras (take shot, email to editor - DONE)!

Anyway, I'm a total advocate of digital photography so may be a bit biased. Check this thread in 10 years and see how many people ask "what the hell is film"?

;-)




RE: Hehehe - this is funny stuff
By Sunbird on 1/14/2006 1:03:41 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell is vinyl?


hmmmm
By The Battōsai on 1/14/2006 11:07:42 AM , Rating: 2
i just got a fuji 4900z camera. had a 2600 z. i'm pretty happy with it. no option for webcam mode like hte 2600 z but thats ok i guess :)

i'm surprised I can still post here lol




RE: hmmmm
By ted61 on 1/15/2006 1:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really care about the numbers and facts. I just know that I have a whole lot of fun with my digital camera and photo printer. I never had much fun with the old film camera.

I spend hours just building computers and finding software to manipulate the photos.



You should buy what you need...
By TigerKR on 1/14/2006 10:00:11 AM , Rating: 3
Using the standard of 300 dpi (that's what actual photo labs use to print their prints, regardless of whether the origin is digital or film - yes, all film is scanned digitally at 300 dpi before it is printed), here's what you need, depending on your desired output:

2x3 in 0.54 mp
3x4 in 1.08 mp
4x5 in 1.8 mp
4x6 in 2.16 mp
6x8 in 4.32 mp
8x10 in 7.2 mp
6x9 in 4.86 mp
9x12 in 9.72 mp
12x15 in 16.2 mp
8x12 in 8.64 mp
12x16 in 17.28 mp
16x20 in 28.8 mp
10x15 in 13.5 mp
15x20 in 27 mp
20x25 in 45 mp
12x18 in 19.44 mp
18x24 in 38.88 mp
24x30 in 64.8 mp
14x21 in 26.46 mp
21x28 in 52.92 mp
28x35 in 88.2 mp
16x24 in 34.56 mp
24x32 in 69.12 mp
32x40 in 115.2 mp
18x27 in 43.74 mp
27x36 in 87.48 mp
36x45 in 145.8 mp
20x30 in 54 mp
30x40 in 108 mp
40x50 in 180 mp

But wait! What if you want to crop your pictures before printing? Well, then you need to start with a larger image. Probably 2x larger, so that way you can crop up to 50% and still get the desired output size print.

If you can't think of why you'd ever need to crop 50% of an image, take into consideration that most point-and-shoot digital cameras have a limited 3x zoom. With a 16 MP camera and a 3x zoom, you can crop to 50% and still get an 8x10 print (that gives you an effective 6x zoom).

In terms of the megapixel count of film, here's some reading:

-----

"The theoretical peak resolution of fine-grained 35mm film is, indeed, something like 50 megapixels, as shown by internationally recognised authority me in this diagram. That's right at the bleeding edge, though. In the real world, even very serious 35mm photographers have a hard time beating 25-megapixel-equivalent quality - you can use a fabulously expensive scanner at outrageous resolution to make much bigger files from 35mm, but all they give you is a larger view of the grain and the blur. So I think it's perfectly fair to say that a truly excellently sharp picture on 35mm film is about 25MP-equivalent."

http://www.dansdata.com/20d_res.htm

-----

"In the figures below, the derived digital megapixel equivalent are fuzzy numbers. For example, the Fujichrome Velvia 35mm equivalent is 10 to 16 megapixels. The 10 and 16 are soft. By soft I mean by several megapixels, like 10 meaning 8 to 12, and 16 meaning 14 to 18. You can see what I mean by trying to compare some of my test images yourself."

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.dig...

-----

"Still, there is no question that conventional film is able to produce sharper images and more detail. Simply put, the more pixels you have, the higher the resolution and the better the image quality. High-end consumer digital cameras still only capture five to six million pixels. Although the resolution of a piece of film is harder to quantify, it's closer to 20 million pixels!"

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?pa...




Numbers...
By MScrip on 1/14/2006 10:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
You can argue numbers all you want... but NIKON has just announced it will abandon making film cameras do focus on digital. They've done the research, the ARE the research, and they have made a decision.

Is it the right time? They think so. Have consumer cameras reached the point where they can truly replace film. Not yet... But when 95% of Nikon's cameras sold are digital... it makes sense to focus on them.

Some people will still use film. But, the general public is pretty happy using digital cameras, no matter how inferior they are to film.




35mm and megapixels
By gentryfunk on 1/16/2006 6:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
OK, this argument is a tricky one. 35mm film vs. megapixels. I shoot 35mm, 6cmx6cm, and 4x5...here's the deal: digital SLRs cannot resolve the detail I can get with high end 35mm not to mention 6x6 or 4x5. This is an easy one to try out: shoot 25 or 50 ASA black and white or color film (35mm) using a tripod. Now, using the same setup shoot digital. Scan film on any film scanner above 4000 DPI....compare scans vs. digital.

Even better, shoot 100ASA 6x6 or 4x5 against digital....no comparison. Tests done by photographers I know suggest that 30 - 40MP is the range that will eventually match high quality film. Medium and Large format films still produce significantly higher resolution vs. digital....scanning backs are the only way to acheive medium format quality at this point.





"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki