Nikon kills (almost all) analog cameras in 2006

Nikon has been seeing some success in the ultra-competitive digital camera market, and now that those sales account for more than 95% of their business, they're ready to go all the way (almost) and are ditching their existing film cameras and lenses -- except for their flagship F6 line and its relevant glass. They're only halting production just now, so we should see the remaining cameras sitting around on store shelves for a bit longer, but when they're gone they're gone. So if you've been waiting to give this whole "film" thing a go, you might want to act fast, because it's not going to be easy to find for much longer.

[Jared Dilg @ Jan 12th 2006 9:08AM]

If you're interested in film, this is the golden age. On eBay you can get any analog Nikon or Canon camera for pennies on the dollar. Same for darkroom equipment too. I held out too long to sell my Nikon N90s and F3HP to finance a digital SLR jump. Now the market is flooded with N90s' and F100s, closing at around $130 and $500 respectively.

[Soleil @ Jan 12th 2006 9:22AM]

This is very sad news. While I love digital photography, I also love film. There is nothing like spending hours in the darkroom processing and developing your own negatives and photographs. I am a Nikon girl when it comes to film (Canon for digital), and Jared's right, I'd better pick up a nice Nikon film body and darkroom equipment before it's a collector's item......

[rob @ Jan 12th 2006 9:40AM]

Sad to see indeed. Digital is great, but it is quite different then film. I dont really miss the darkroom to much, but I just don't have an intrest in jumping on the digital slr bandwagon. I just dont feel the same connection with an image when shooting digital. Owell life goes on.

[ivan @ Jan 12th 2006 9:43AM]

well.. that's sad news. But non-pro's will always go for digital and that's what sells the most now. At least they're keeping the F6,maybe film won't be mainstream but it won't completely disappear.



At least lomo's are getting very popular :P

[Samuel McConnell @ Jan 12th 2006 9:52AM]

I love-a my N65. Maybe now is the time to upgrade to a pro body, if they are indeed killing their other film camera lines. Cheap cheap!

[Stanley @ Jan 12th 2006 10:11AM]

Such a shame...although my interest in digital has grown far more than I imagined and intitially protested, I just recently picked up an N80 off eBay and have been looking at getting an F100 as well. I guess that's going to ahve to be sooner rather than later.

[JRM @ Jan 12th 2006 11:28AM]

there will always be a place for film. though more as a small, subtle, classic artform. I still prefer film over digital in the "LP vs. CD" sort of way. Besides, it's also much more fun developing in a darkroom all by yourself (or other interested people) than in your desk in front of a computer and getting interrupted by your family.

[MrHoju @ Jan 12th 2006 11:45AM]

This is the perfect time to pick up a used Nikon F5. A great SLR and an industry standard for a long time.

[Jason @ Jan 12th 2006 3:27PM]

I was wondering when the day would come. As a long time Nikon F-801/F4 user, I miss the permanence of film. It forces you to be more selective and more judicious with your shots, which has pro's and con's.

[PK @ Jan 12th 2006 3:46PM]

Just bought myself an F6 and a slide scanner. Years from now my kids/grandkids will find slides and have a treasure trove. Those Kodak picture CDs from the 90s, garbage none of my macs or pc will read them. I printed some B/W images from negs I had with my Epson and everyone in my office noticed the great grain the images had.



My D70 will still get used, just only about half the time.

[Bruce Beckner @ Jan 12th 2006 4:21PM]

As a guy who still runs around with a 1968-vintage Photomic F that I bought over 30 years ago,an F2 I bought maybe 20 years ago, with associated lenses, not to mention the N70 and three AF lenses I bought 9 years ago, I'm reasonably well-fixed for hardware. The bigger question for all of us is how long will paper, film and developing chemicals be easily available. I am amazed by the tricks that my recently-purchased D50 can do in conjunction with photoshop. Since I never got into color printing myself, I'm happy to do all of that digitally. But for me the things that one can do with black and white don't translate into digital; and I would hope to continue as an "analog" B&W shooter.

[Akiva Kotler @ Jan 12th 2006 5:18PM]

I am looking forward to the time when I can get a digitil back for my 4x5 and Hassy without needing to take a second morgage out on my home. I just got my first digital camera (Nikon 7900). The serious photographer has more image making tools than ever. Do not need to worry about silver running out.

[Bruce McLaughlin @ Oct 30th 2006 10:30PM]

Akiva, (Paul) Reply to me personally, I want to talk to you. Bruce

[blackminorca @ Jan 12th 2006 5:36PM]

Yeah but what about the glass? Is that changing too? Whats that mean? New digital bodies ? Maybe now the time to sell the D2H

[ross @ Jan 12th 2006 5:45PM]

This was bound to happen. Its the end of the road for film based photography. As demand for the film slumps, economies of scale will disapear. A 35mm roll will increase in price, lowering demand even further.



Nikons big problem now is that its at least one generation behind on digital technology. Even "no name" brand digitals are as good as the lower priced Nikons.

[yelohbird @ Jan 12th 2006 6:39PM]

ross,

you're basing your criticism of Nikon on its few entries in the overly-saturated point-and-shoot market. When Nikon says 95% of its revenues come from digital, it's safe to assume that they're not referring to their mediocre $300-$500 point-and-shoots, but their top-of-the-line DSLRs which sell in the thousands. In that market, there is effectively a duopoly between Nikon and Canon, and thus margins will be expected to be highest.



That said, I'm a diehard Nikon film-SLR fan (from my dad's FE to my current F100). It's sad to see Nikon sacrifices its professional/amateur film user base, the same user base which have supported their products for generations past, to the stronger pull of market forces which show that DSLRs are more profitable in recent years. An F6 simply isn't a camera that a dad gives his son for his first high school darkroom class, or that a creative soul can pick up to discover his unfound passion for film developing.



It's the sad end of an era.

[PersonFromPorlock @ Jan 12th 2006 6:50PM]

I have to agree about the coming demise of film. Frankly, I won't miss it that much but I do wish someone would come up with a 'universal' basic digital body that could be adapted to take different lens and viewfinder accessory sets (Nikon, Canon, Minolts MD etc.) so that all that very good equipment could stay useful.



I think there must be a few old hands like me around who don't really feel the need for autofocus or autoexposure in a digital body, just a TTL meter and LOTS of pixels.

[JimboNC @ Jan 13th 2006 12:25AM]

Darn! I KNEW I should have sold my FE and its nine lenses a long time ago. The FE is like new no scratches or dings.



One thing digitals can't do is double-exposures and there are times you need that ability. Photoshop doesn't simulate it well at all.

[daivd from go home lake @ Jan 13th 2006 7:59AM]

Not only are they dropping their 35mm line, they're dropping their large format line as well ... after leaving (ok, being kicked out of ... ) the photojournalism biz in the early 90s I sold all my Canon stuff from 20mm2.8 to 400mm2.8 and snagged myself a 50s vintage Kodak Master 8x10 plus some glass, the nicest of which is a 450mm Nikkor in a Copal 3 shutter. I still hit the darkroom of course, tray developing two negs at a time and making contact prints, but I get more pleasure from scanning those puppies and making REALLY BIG Epson prints. Just think: a 400% enlargement from 35mm gets you about a 4x6 inch print, from 8x10 400% gets you 32x40! It's the perfect jaw-droppin' amalgamation of analogue and digital.

[Akiva Kotler @ Jan 16th 2006 2:27AM]

With digitil we do not need to have the images go through a second optical system and our darkroom is now in our computer.

[Michael O'Sullivan @ Jan 29th 2006 9:58AM]

I have seen Nikon's ad for it's top digital camera saying it's resolution is "approaching "that of it's film cameras. That said, digital is fine for taking photographs but it falls down in the printing process. No inkjet printer can produce the quality of top class photo processing. Also, another point to consider, digital can't produce transparencies for large screen projection.

[Sean Armitage @ Mar 29th 2006 8:58PM]

Anyone who takes sides with this digital revolution needs to take some time and take some real photographs with a real film camera. Judging by some of the comments here pro digital....for example the assumption that pixel count is the defining factor in an image on a digicam, clearly illustrates the lack of information some people have. Digital photography translates an image to binary code, then it is manipulated further through compression, and then photoshoped so it can somehow with digital wizardry compare to film. I don't know about any of you, but that is not photography. The main reason why digital is so popular is because most people can't take pictures! they want a piece of plastic to take a photograph for them with ONE button. Digital photography is a result of convenience, and there is nothing artistic about convenience.

[s8 @ May 25th 2006 12:13PM]

oh well, artsy-fartsy film fetishists!!! so-so-so sad news.... this whole "discussion" is going nowhere. you're stuck to the things you've been doing for so long and i understand it's not so easy to quit them, but the whole quality-fetish photography, whether film, whether digital, whether whatever makes me sick. "interesting" has little to do with "hi-res". you can take extremely cool pictures with a vga cameraphone if you want if you care and if you USE IT ARTISTICALLY.

[Daniel @ May 25th 2006 4:40PM]

"you can take extremely cool pictures with a vga cameraphone"

... I hope you're being sarcastic. Yo find me a cameraphone with a tripod socket, external flash port, memory capabilities beyond 8gig with a CCD or CMOS sensor. VGA? It's been years since I shot in the VGA range, and it sucked then. Limited enlargement! I'll go enlarge my 4x5's and laugh when you try to do a 150% crop on your VGA.

[Michael McGrath @ Nov 19th 2006 4:43AM]

OK, but I can still spot the difference between a print from top digital SLRs and average analogue SLRs. I use Canon Eos 3000V, Monolta 5, Bronica SQA and Mamiya 645, and that little treasure the Pentax Espio with massive zoom, and digital doesn't come near prints from any of these - and then there's the huge digital problem of white balance.

Digital cameras are necessary for press photography here in Ireland as editors won't accept prints or trannies anymore, but when I hear that 30 % of professionals here are shooting weddings on digital I'm horrified - and with the results I've seen too!

And under the best studio lighting set-ups I've seen horrible pink flesh tones, red-pink even, inkjet prints of babes. Yes, digi is fun, and for the masses who just want to point and shoot, fully understandable, family snap shots, also in pubs, clubs, discos, holiers etc.

Right now there is no camera system that a pro can adopt with confidence in digi, though the Mamita ZD is probably pointing the way.

And CCDs develop 'split hairs' or can even go a little bit bald! We'll all have to live another 20 years at least to see if out digi prints last.

That said, every single lay person I meet is taken up with the excitement of digi, and I expect that 99% of equipment sales this Xmas in Ireland will be digi.

Michael McGrath, photog, Ireland.

[ross @ Sep 25th 2007 1:51AM]

This was bound to happen. Its the end of the road for film based photography. As demand for the film slumps, economies of scale will disapear. A 35mm roll will increase in price, lowering demand even further.



Nikons big problem now is that its at least one generation behind on digital technology. Even "no name" brand digitals are as good as the lower priced Nikons.

[Manuel @ Oct 10th 2007 2:44AM]

Hey! I have been using the good old Nikon FA 35mm film camera for the past 20 years. And now I have gone and bought another camera of that era - the N8008 - off Ebay for under $70. Though I have a digital p/s (Nikon 4500 - 4MP), I was thinking of going in for an SLR, the Nikon D40 6MP; and then, within a few months after its launch, Nikon sent in the D40x 10 MP! That was too much for me and I have decided to stick to film - for better or worse... most probably, for worse!

[JCL @ Jul 17th 2008 9:42PM]

Might as well jump into the film/digital fray. I am not now, or ever, getting into high calibre digital equipment. I have no problem with the images produced digitally as most pro work is exceptional. I have a problem with the never ending upward escalation of features and specifications. These pro cameras seem to re-invent themselves every couple of years or so, at considerable cost to the working pro. I have an F, two F2's and an F4 and they all work just fine, thank you. Actually, I think the F4 is the pinnacle of film based cameras. My wife's F5 is too much of a complication for me. I remember about ten years ago seeing plasma technology at The Sony Store. Incredible picture on a 27" screen. All for $16,000. Bet the guy that bought that puppy is still making payments on a TV that can now be purchased for $500. Same is happening in the digital photagraphy world. Sorry, can't afford the entry fee.