Ivan123 wrote:
No one is manufacturing film cameras.  That is no surprise, there are hundreds sitting on the selves of every photo shop.

I think that is not correct. Leica lists three film cameras: The M-A, MP, and the wonderful M6. At around $5,700. each they are not for everyone, but they are still making film cameras.

Ivan123 wrote:
I knew that digital cameras were in decline but had no idea that the production of digital camera had fallen 94% from their peak.

It's the usual story with anything novel or radically new. It becomes popular for a while and then....

Some statistics here;

https://shotkit.com/camera-industry-stats/

Weldphoto wrote:

I think that is not correct. Leica lists three film cameras: The M-A, MP, and the wonderful M6. At around $5,700. each they are not for everyone, but they are still making film cameras.

I stand corrected.  But what market are they aiming for?  You can go to any photo shop and find dozens of high-end film cameras really cheap so who is going to buy a film camera for almost $6k?  And I should have made clear that I was thinking not cameras but 35mm cameras.  I still have my 4"x5" view camera that I use for making palladium contact prints.

JSouthworth wrote:

It's the usual story with anything novel or radically new. It becomes popular for a while and then....

Some statistics here;

https://shotkit.com/camera-industry-stats/

Interesting, much of what is in this link is the exact opposite of what my link said so I don't know what to believe.

Ivan123 wrote:
No one is manufacturing film cameras.

There are new film cameras being made,
but only at the high end (Leica), low end (Kodak point and shoot and instax style cameras), and hand made specialty cameras.

In addition to the Leica cameras mentioned above,

There is no shortage of new plastic point and shoots being made under the  "Kodak", Illford, Holga.... brands.
Instant film cameras are being made under the Instax and Polaroid brands,
and there are some truly beautiful handmade pinhole cameras on the market. (I have one made by http://www.zeroimage.com )

Ivan123 wrote:
No one is manufacturing film cameras.  That is no surprise, there are hundreds sitting on the selves of every photo shop.

In addition to the aforementioned offerings, Pentax is developing a new 35mm film camera (coming this summer) and MINT Camera is developing a new Rollei 35 with autofocus.

https://rollei35af.com/

Ivan123 wrote:
who is going to buy a film camera for almost $6k?

Leica is a luxury brand, so everything they sell is at a higher price point than other companies, but there is massive demand for their products (they just posted record revenue). They have stores with galleries worldwide, and they actively promote photography and photographers (including those shooting film) through exhibitions, artist talks, classes, etc. I'm a regular at the LA store/gallery for exhibitions and artist talks.

Their products, especially film cameras, hold value much better than digital cameras, and they have a very active worldwide collector market. Leica's rare, limited edition, and vintage gear can sell for eye-watering prices!

The limited edition Leica M-A 'Titan' set (film camera and 50mm f/2 lens) released in 2022 for $20k already resells for $40k, and you can easily find Leica cameras and lenses that sell for tens to hundreds of thousands, and some for over a million dollars.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:

Leica is a luxury brand, so everything they sell is at a higher price point than other companies, but there is massive demand for their products (they just posted record revenue). They have stores with galleries worldwide, and they actively promote photography and photographers (including those shooting film) through exhibitions, artist talks, classes, etc. I'm a regular at the LA store/gallery for exhibitions and artist talks.

Their products, especially film cameras, hold value much better than digital cameras, and they have a very active worldwide collector market. Leica's rare, limited edition, and vintage gear can sell for eye-watering prices!

The limited edition Leica M-A 'Titan' set (film camera and 50mm f/2 lens) released in 2022 for $20k already resells for $40k, and you can easily find Leica cameras and lenses that sell for tens to hundreds of thousands, and some for over a million dollars.

Not surprising. Aside from "retro" appeal, there will always be aficionados who prefer the look of film. In cinema, major motion pictures are still being shot on film, "Oppenheimer" being a notable example. 

https://www.indiewire.com/features/craf … 234886893/

Similarly, vinyl records are still being produced, and turntables, cartridges, and other analog audio accessories are still being made. For many, analog is preferable to digital sampling.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Let me make what may be a controversial statement- you have never seen a film image on the internet, and never will.. It’s ALL digital.

By that standard image in the newspaper weren't film images- as it was all halftone

Studio NSFW wrote:
WWII was quite some time ago and comparisons of the photo equipment market then vs now is like comparing the carburetor market  in 1946 with modern fuel injection and hybrid battery technologies

Which is better from the user perspective? That's the question. In the 1940s you could probably fix your car yourself if it broke down.

Recently I've been using some 120 folding cameras which date from the WW2 period or thereabouts. They're excellent cameras, with the one proviso that the technique of using them is totally different from current production cameras. Basically, you set the aperture, shutter speed and focus, then locate yourself and the camera at the correct distance from the subject and shoot. A laser rangefinder and exposure meter may be helpful in some situations.

JSouthworth wrote:
After the M4 they moved production to Canada and started using less expensive materials and streamlined production methods, not that this should concern you greatly if your main interest is in photography.

It's a bit of a misconception that quality control suffered due to production being moved to Canada. If you're purely a collector, some of the products manufactured in Germany fetch higher prices than the same ones made in Canada, but as you said, from a photographer's point of view there is often no difference.

Walter Mandler, the famed lens designer, moved to Canada and oversaw production in person. Some people argue the quality was of a higher standard in Canada on some products for this reason. Some of his most sought-after lens designs were only made in Canada, including the ultra-rare Elcan 66mm and 50mm f/2 lenses, which easily sell for upwards of $50k to $100k respectively, and the early versions of the Noctilux 50mm f/1.

I love vintage Leica cameras and lenses and happen to own a few that I shoot regularly, including the M3, Noctilux 50mm f/1 (v2), Summilux 50mm f1.4 (v2), and Summicron 35mm f/2 (v1).

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
It's a bit of a misconception that quality control suffered due to production being moved to Canada. If you're purely a collector, some of the products manufactured in Germany fetch higher prices than the same ones made in Canada, but as you said, from a photographer's point of view there is often no difference.

Walter Mandler, the famed lens designer, moved to Canada and oversaw production in person. Some people argue the quality was of a higher standard in Canada on some products for this reason. Some of his most sought-after lens designs were only made in Canada, including the ultra-rare Elcan 66mm and 50mm f/2 lenses, which easily sell for upwards of $50k to $100k respectively, and the early versions of the Noctilux 50mm f/1.

I love vintage Leica cameras and lenses and happen to own a few that I shoot regularly, including the M3, Noctilux 50mm f/1 (v2), Summilux 50mm f1.4 (v2), and Summicron 35mm f/2 (v1).

I don't think anyone would accuse Leica of poor quality today. Certainly the lenses that they make now are optically superior to the 1960s products.

However it remains a fact that after moving rangefinder camera production to Canada Leica did make some cost reducing changes including the use of zinc instead of chrome plated brass for the top and bottom covers. Production methods were modernized to save time by reducing the need for adjustment and fitting of mechanical parts by hand. The M5 was the last model to be built in the traditional way;

https://cameraquest.com/m5.htm

The first Leica reflex cameras that were built in Canada with the involvement of Minolta, the R3 and R4 are not regarded as the best things they ever made, whereas the previous Leicaflex SL2 (1974-1976) is still sought after. Even though the body cost twice as much as a Nikon F2 to buy new, Leitz apparently made a loss on each one of these they produced because of the level of mechanical complexity and fine tolerances required by the design, which the use of electronic shutters in the R3 and R4 was intended to alleviate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicaflex

A Canon 7 from the 1960s is a good alternative to a Leica M. Before the introduction of the Canon F1 SLR in 1971, this was their top of the range professional model and they were obviously made to a high standard since many are still around despite intensive use by Japanese press photographers.

I was in a photofinisher's shop a few years ago when a guy brought in a Leica M6 that he'd inherited from his father, not because there was anything wrong with it but because he couldn't figure out how to load film in it, I managed to do it after about two or three attempts. You have to put the film leader all the way through the take-up spool otherwise it falls out when you try to wind on.

Ivan123 wrote:
I was slow to adopt digital and slow to abandon film but I finally gave away all my film cameras

.....

I knew that digital cameras were in decline but had no idea that the production of digital camera had fallen 94% from their peak

......

It is all cell phones (which can take great pictures) and most photos are never seen but, if they are, then they are seen on a 3"x4" cell phone screen, swipe, swipe, swipe, done.  Photographs have become background noise and hard to get any one photograph noticed in the flood.

Time really comes at you fast huh!

I recently realized that I've been using Adobe Lightroom for image editing as "the new thing" for a decade longer than I used Photoshop as the "new thing", and I'm still acting like I'm using some newfangled way of non-destructive image editing

so I would criticize, but it happens to me in ways I'm easily blind too as well!

only thought about it because I'm considering replacing all of my adobe products for Da Vinci Resolve and Affinity or Capture One

JSouthworth wrote:
I don't think anyone would accuse Leica of poor quality today. Certainly the lenses that they make now are optically superior to the 1960s products.

However it remains a fact that after moving rangefinder camera production to Canada Leica did make some cost reducing changes including the use of zinc instead of chrome plated brass for the top and bottom covers. Production methods were modernized to save time by reducing the need for adjustment and fitting of mechanical parts by hand. The M5 was the last model to be built in the traditional way;

https://cameraquest.com/m5.htm

The first Leica reflex cameras that were built in Canada with the involvement of Minolta, the R3 and R4 are not regarded as the best things they ever made, whereas the previous Leicaflex SL2 (1974-1976) is still sought after. Even though the body cost twice as much as a Nikon F2 to buy new, Leitz apparently made a loss on each one of these they produced because of the level of mechanical complexity and fine tolerances required by the design, which the use of electronic shutters in the R3 and R4 was intended to alleviate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicaflex

A Canon 7 from the 1960s is a good alternative to a Leica M. Before the introduction of the Canon F1 SLR in 1971, this was their top of the range professional model and they were obviously made to a high standard since many are still around despite intensive use by Japanese press photographers.

I was in a photofinisher's shop a few years ago when a guy brought in a Leica M6 that he'd inherited from his father, not because there was anything wrong with it but because he couldn't figure out how to load film in it, I managed to do it after about two or three attempts. You have to put the film leader all the way through the take-up spool otherwise it falls out when you try to wind on.

Sorry, I should have been more specific... I was referring to the quality of Leica M cameras and lenses made in Canada (up to the M4 as you had mentioned that camera in your previous post). The M5 is considered inferior to other M cameras for many reasons.

The M6 uses the much quicker/easier film-loading style that became standard with the M4. You should try loading an M3 for a unique style.

And, while it's true that modern optics are technically superior, it's the imperfections/characteristics of vintage lenses that make them more appealing to some photographers (myself included). The most modern lenses I own are Hasselblad's CF series from the 1980s!

Studio NSFW wrote:
Let me make what may be a controversial statement- you have never seen a film image on the internet, and never will.. It’s ALL digital.

I don't find it controversial.  I also do "antique" processes, like platinum and kallitype, the quotes to signify that they are maybe 100+ years old which is not quite like ancient Rome.  There are discussion groups on all of these with people posting pictures of their pictures and discussing fine distinctions of tonal range.  NO ONE appreciates it when I point out that all the pictures of pictures are NOT platinum prints but digital images on a computer monitor of a platinum print.  If you want to see a platinum print, you have to look at it in a picture frame hanging on a wall.

And I have never understood that many who shoot film then scan the film, which means it is all digital from that point forward, and they somehow call that "analogue" or "silver."  If the whole thing is not done with chemicals, then it is not chemical IMHO.  Not that it is somehow verboten, just that it is no longer silver once it has passed through a computer.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
Sorry, I should have been more specific... I was referring to the quality of Leica M cameras and lenses made in Canada (up to the M4 as you had mentioned that camera in your previous post). The M5 is considered inferior to other M cameras for many reasons.

The M6 uses the much quicker/easier film-loading style that became standard with the M4. You should try loading an M3 for a unique style.

And, while it's true that modern optics are technically superior, it's the imperfections/characteristics of vintage lenses that make them more appealing to some photographers (myself included). The most modern lenses I own are Hasselblad's CF series from the 1980s!

The system of film loading is perhaps the most questionable feature of the Leica M. You have to remove the bottom plate to load film, imagine trying to do that while riding in a helicopter. Maybe that's one reason why photojournalists in Vietnam like Larry Burrows started using Nikon SLRs. Leica could have designed them with a hinged opening back like the Canon 7.

I have never personally seen a Leica M5 but according to the article linked above, many examples today show very heavy wear from professional use. Why it was not a better seller is a bit of a mystery, although by the time it appeared the Japanese SLR was taking over the market.

Ivan123 wrote:
And I have never understood that many who shoot film then scan the film, which means it is all digital from that point forward, and they somehow call that "analogue" or "silver."  If the whole thing is not done with chemicals, then it is not chemical IMHO.  Not that it is somehow verboten, just that it is no longer silver once it has passed through a computer.

Film offers advantages at the picture taking stage, mainly greater dynamic range, the ability to record detail in both shadow and highlight areas. You get a better looking picture, the question of whether it's technically an analogue or digital image or both is secondary I think.

There is a commercial market for platinum toned black and white prints, so some people make them for that reason. Palladium toning, gold toning and selenium toning are some other possibilities.

JSouthworth wrote:
The system of film loading is perhaps the most questionable feature of the Leica M. You have to remove the bottom plate to load film, imagine trying to do that while riding in a helicopter.

The film loading style was one of the reasons I chose a Voigtlander Bessa-r over the Leica III,
Which uses the same bottom loading style.

Also, the modern metering and superior viewfinder were big sells for the Bessa-r.

Chris Macan wrote:
The film loading style was one of the reasons I chose a Voigtlander Bessa-r over the Leica III,
Which uses the same bottom loading style.

Also, the modern metering and superior viewfinder were big sells for the Bessa-r.

The Contax G2 is also popular although it isn't a "real" rangefinder, the focusing system is electronic.

https://thephotographyprofessor.com/all … t=cmp-true

Chris Macan wrote:
Also, the modern metering and superior viewfinder were big sells for the Bessa-r.

If your preference is for 50mm and 35mm lenses, the M3 viewfinder is unrivaled IMO. The 0.85 version of the M6 comes a distant second and everything else, from the M4 to the latest M11, pales by comparison.

I prefer fully manual cameras, without a meter, which is another reason why I love the M3 so much.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:

If your preference is for 50mm and 35mm lenses, the M3 viewfinder is unrivaled IMO. The 0.85 version of the M6 comes a distant second and everything else, from the M4 to the latest M11, pales by comparison.

I prefer fully manual cameras, without a meter, which is another reason why I love the M3 so much.

I wanted a native M39 mount so that ruled out the Leica M series.
and the bright Bessa-r viewfinder with 35/50/75/90 framelines was far better than the other older M39 camera options.
Plus, it had a light meter, and it was accurate and really easy to use.

Chris Macan wrote:
I wanted a native M39 mount so that ruled out the Leica M series.
and the bright Bessa-r viewfinder with 35/50/75/90 framelines was far better than the other older M39 camera options.
Plus, it had a light meter, and it was accurate and really easy to use.

The Canon 7 has the M39 mount. It also has a concentric external bayonet type mount for the 50mm f0.95 lens and the reflex housing for long lenses. It has selectable viewfinder framelines for 50, 85 100 and 135 lenses, and also a frameless viewfinder image corresponding to 35mm. Depending on sub-type it has either an external selenium cell meter or an external CdS meter (Canon 7s, 7sz) although neither is likely to be reliable after more than 50 years.

Originally there was a complete system including the reflex housing, lenses up to 1000mm and all kinds of other stuff. The most comprehensive system for 35mm after Leica.

This is a camera that not only has a specification comparable to the Leica M4 but is comparable in build quality, it's very solid. I bought one a few years back, as yet I don't have any original Canon lenses for it but I will try to get at least a 50mm I think. At the moment I have a Jupiter 50mm which is okay optically.

https://mikeeckman.com/2021/02/canon-7-1961/

https://www.cameraquest.com/canon7sz.htm

http://www.photoethnography.com/Classic … ~mainFrame

https://cameraquest.com/crflen.htm

Cosina are well known as lens makers, they have also made cameras for many years but until they acquired the Voigtlander brand these were budget 35mm SLRs like the CT1, useable cameras but not generally considered professional equipment;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosina_CT-1

The Contax S2 was apparently also a Cosina product, like the Yashica FX3;

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1527747

Cheap doesn't necessarily mean bad. I recently bought a 1970s Chinon CM3 in fully working condition (apart from the frame counter) for £5.00 in a car boot sale and re-worked it with new light seals. This has all metal construction including brass top and bottom plates, heavyweight by modern standards and is one of the few M42 mount cameras that takes an autowinder. Subsequent Chinon cameras became more plasticky, but the CP7m in Pentax K mount is still quite useful.

JSouthworth wrote:
The Canon 7 has the M39 mount. It also has a concentric external bayonet type mount for the 50mm f0.95 lens and the reflex housing for long lenses. It has selectable viewfinder framelines for 50, 85 100 and 135 lenses, and also a frameless viewfinder image corresponding to 35mm. Depending on sub-type it has either an external selenium cell meter or an external CdS meter (Canon 7s, 7sz) although neither is likely to be reliable after more than 50 years.

Ironically, I turned down an offer of a free Canon 7 body a few weeks back.
A 35mm rangefinder just doesn't fit my working style anymore.

I did love that Bessa-R when I had it.

Chris Macan wrote:
Ironically, I turned down an offer of a free Canon 7 body a few weeks back.
A 35mm rangefinder just doesn't fit my working style anymore.

I did love that Bessa-R when I had it.

I don't use mine much, partly because I only have the one non-original lens for it, but that could change. It's a good thing to have around, comparable to a Leica M4 rangefinder. My example has a cracked frame illuminator window and a dented shutter curtain. Nearly all Canon 7s have dented shutter curtains, not because the original users were careless but because as professional press photographers and photojournalists in 1960s Japan, they had to reload quickly.

JSouthworth wrote:
The system of film loading is perhaps the most questionable feature of the Leica M. You have to remove the bottom plate to load film, imagine trying to do that while riding in a helicopter. Maybe that's one reason why photojournalists in Vietnam like Larry Burrows started using Nikon SLRs. Leica could have designed them with a hinged opening back like the Canon 7.

I have never personally seen a Leica M5 but according to the article linked above, many examples today show very heavy wear from professional use. Why it was not a better seller is a bit of a mystery, although by the time it appeared the Japanese SLR was taking over the market.

Larry Burrows can be seen in this old clip of BBC documentary film with his Leica M series cameras;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04vnvdx

Burrows was sadly killed when the helicopter he was travelling in was shot down during Operation Lam Son 719, the South Vietnamese offensive into Laos in 1971.