Confusion over Canon film cameras

come. A smaller place, to be sure, but a place nonetheless. Further development though, doesn't make much sense. What could there be left for film to do that it can't already? I agree with previous posters that the tecnology is mature and its time to use the resources elsewhere. Nothing is forever.

by mustangj36 (See profile) - June 2, 2006 6:36 AM PDT

Most, if not all, digital camera resolution 11 megapixel and above are digitally enhanced 6-8 megapixel shots. This is due to ever improving software that come with the camera. Film, on the other hand, has a resolution totally reliant on the camera itself. Good color film in a good camera generates a resolution of about 56,000 x 56,000. The huma eye can only discern a resolution of 1100 x 1100. I use both types of cameras. A Nikon F4s for film (mosly slides) and a Nikon D-100 for digital with the new D-200 on the short horizon. I chose the Nikon digital SLR because I already have a large assortment of lenses that work on both. Until digital cameras catch up with film's higher resolution film cameras will always be in demand, especially if you are a purest.

Jack Foley, CNET moderator (jackintucson)
Tucson, AZ

by jackintucson (See profile) - May 26, 2006 12:31 PM PDT

There are many photo opportunities in cold temperatures. Digital camera specs seem to limit operation around 32 deg. F.
My old OM-1 (film) has performed very well at -0 deg F temps. and below. Are there any afffordable digital cameras that are speced for low temperature operation?

by geopb (See profile) - May 26, 2006 9:53 AM PDT

...made on film bodies within the last 15 years? My newest film camera is almost 20 years old, an early Canon EOS. I also still use a 25+ year old Canon A-1, and a 30+ year old Pentax. After the Canon EOS, there really wasn't much reason to buy a newer film camera, beyond better designed controls. Face it: Film technology matured and peaked about 15 or so years ago. They can keep building them, but I can see that it makes little sense to spend more R&D on film instead of on digital.

by JohnMcGrew (See profile) - May 26, 2006 9:47 AM PDT

Canon can fire all of their engineers to make even more money and look good for the current year!Is that what business has come to anyway? Short term profits are in.Canon and the powers that be want to kill film cameras? Then all of us who love film cameras and own them will be up the creek.No problem,because planned obsolesence is in too.It always has been.We need more tech junk to put in the landfills.
Canon already has some very nice digital cameras so they do not need to engineers for those anymore either.So,I say,fire all of the engineers to look good on this years balance sheet which will assure more investors.Then the Canon CEO can go retire a rich man.He doesn't need film and he won't need any more digital.He don't need any more headaches about running a company either.

by WilliamKazak (See profile) - May 26, 2006 5:16 AM PDT

While I love the ease of use of digital cameras and all of their extras, I have always preferred a film camera. Yes, you can do everything and more that film can do with a digital camera, but I still love looking at negatives etc. I was shocked, but not too shocked, when Tamron decided to exit the medium format market and stop making parts for Bronicas (why couldn't they make a digital back? Hasselblad did). I own several film cameras (Pentax, Chinon, Minolta, Hasselblad) as well as a nice Nikon digital camera.

Lest you think I'm some old fogey, I'm only 35 and work in the computer business. I still find enjoyment in working with film and some of the challenges behind it.

by oskiller (See profile) - May 26, 2006 2:09 AM PDT