Who’s really manufacturing film in 2025?

There is a store named Bellows in Little Five Points (a neighborhood in Atlanta) where they still sell a wide selection of 35mm and 120 film. I stopped by yesterday and bought film from Kodak, Harman and Fujifilm.

Back home, I looked at the box of Fujifilm Acros 100 II that I had just bought. It clearly mentions it’s made in the United Kingdom. Fujifilm? In England? A quick research confirms it: the Acros 100 II film is made by Harman Technologies Ltd, the British company that manufactures its own Ilford and Kentmere Black & White film, and also supplies B&W film for brands such as Agfa, Rollei, Oriental Seagull and … now Fujifilm. No wonder that Harman can boast of a 80% market share in the segment of B&W photo film.

The company currently known as Harman Technologies Ltd is the result of a management buy out of Ilford Imaging UK Ltd, after it went under in 2004. Founded in 1879 by a Mr Harman, the manufacturer of photographic material we know as “Ilford” still operate from their historical facilities in Mobberley, near Manchester, and have added color film to the well known range of B&W film stock (Ilford FP4 Plus, HP5 Plus, XP2, Kentmere) they produce in their plant.

Over its 146 years of operations, Ilford went through an incredible number of acquisitions, mergers, rebrands, splits, receiverships and buy-outs, and as a result Harman Technologies does not even own the “Ilford” brand.

*Eastman Kodak, Fujifilm, Harman Technologies – the volume leaders of what remains of the photographic film industry. But who manufactures what, and for whom?*

The “Ilford” brand currently belongs to Ilford Imaging Europe GmbH, which inherited it along with the Swiss side of the old Ilford business (which used to manufacture Cibachrome and later Ilfochrome photographic papers). That side of the Ilford historical business went through its own series of plant closures, acquisitions and bankruptcies, and does not produce film or photographic paper anymore. It licenses the use of the “Ilford” brand to Harman Technologies for its B&W products, and simply distributes a range of color photographic products under the Ilford brand.

As a consequence, the current Ilford Ilfocolor film and the Ilford Ilfocolor single use cameras have nothing to do with Harman Technologies or the Mobberley plant (Harman’s own color film is sold as the “Harman Phoenix”), and are probably made by one of the companies that picked up the pieces after the East German (ORWO) and West German (Agfa) film manufacturing giants went under.

I can’t describe how this whole constellation of remote descendants of Agfa and ORWO is organized, as the situation still seems very murky, with insolvencies and lawsuits left and right. The German side of Agfa is long gone, and I don’t know if the current reincarnation of ORWO is still in operation. If they are, it (probably) makes them one of the only four companies in the world still in the color film manufacturing business, alongside Eastman Kodak and Fujifim – the heavyweights, and Harman – the new entrant (*)

At least one small (and reputable) company, ADOX, could salvage some of the industrial assets of the fallen giants (as well as some of the machines of the Swiss side of Ilford), and operates a B&W film plant in Germany.

After this detour through Switzerland and Germany, let’s go back to Fujifilm. Do you know that the Fujicolor 200 film sold over here in the US is manufactured by… Eastman Kodak. Which may not be the case in other parts of the world – Fujicolor 200 film is also packaged in China through a partnership with a local company, presumably to serve the Asian markets.

*Made in the US by Eastman Kodak, distributed by Kodak Alaris.*

In addition to Eastman Kodak, Harman, Fujifilm and the remnants of the German photographic film industry, a few players still manufacture film: in Belgium, Agfa-Gevaert produce specialty B&W film for aerial photography, Foma Bohemia make B&W film in the Czech Republic, and Ferrania are trying to restart a B&W film factory in Italy.

Photographic film is definitely manufactured in China and possibly in the Ukraine (by China Lucky and Svema respectively) but those brands are not distributed in the US and I have no precise information about them.

*American Petit LeMans (2009 edition). Yellow and American. Like Kodak. Shot on film in 2009 with a Nikon camera.*

The rest of the brands (Arista, Cinestill, KONO Manufactur, Leica, Lomography, Rollei, …) may commission the manufacturing of limited batches of their own proprietary film from one of the player listed above, or create their own “experimental” film by altering cinematographic film they buy mainly from Kodak, or simply re-label film produced by Harman, Foma, Adox and a few others.

As for the Instax instant film (one of the fattest cash cows of Fujifilm – $1Billion revenue with a 20% margin in 2024), it’s still made in Japan. Polaroid’s manufacturing operations are split between a main plant in the Netherlands and a smaller unit in Germany (one of the Agfa offshoots) which supplies the negative layer of the instant film. An exception in this industry, Polaroid has reunited under the same owner the brand and the plants, and manufactures and distributes its own products.

*Green boxes do not necessarily come from Japan anymore.*

There are no reliable statistics about the total value of the photography film market in the world – I’m reading anything between $500 million to $2.5 Billion a year – a fraction of what the market was as its peak in 1999 (Kodak’s revenue alone that year was $17Billion, which would equate to $32Billion in today’s US dollar).

*American Petit LeMans – Braselton (GA) – another Japan-England cooperation: the Mazda-Judd* – *Shot on film with a Nikon Camera in 2009*

With the exception of Fujifilm, all the big players of the twentieth century (Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Orwo, Polaroid) have been dismantled, with the ownership of the brands often decoupled from the ownership of the remnants of the manufacturing assets, and the actual manufacturing and distribution activities under the responsibility of new actors. It explains the proliferation of new or resuscitated brands such as ADOX, Harman, Harman Phoenix, Kentmere, Original Wolfen or Rollei.

Does it matter? Not to me – as long as I can find good film to feed my cameras.

(*) Why is Harman entering the color film business, by the way ? They see a strategic opportunity in color film, obviously, and they’re also uniquely placed to take advantage of it because of their experience with chromogenic film.

Harman (as the successor of the pre-receivership British side of Ilford) has been manufacturing monochrome chromogenic film since 1981 (the XP, XP2 and now the XP2 Plus). The XP2 Plus (like the defunct Kodak BW400CN) is conceptually a simplified version of the typical chromogenic negative color film (think Kodacolor or Fujicolor), with only one layer of neutral color dyes as opposed to three layers of colored dyes in the negative color films.

In the heydays of film photography, the benefit of chromogenic monochrome film was primarily that it could be processed with negative color film, in the same machines using the same baths – the photo processing labs and the minilabs did not have to dedicate equipment and chemicals to the XP2 or BW400CN film like they would have had to do with “true” B&W film.

Two good sources of information about film photography:

silvergrainclassics.com

Kosmofoto : the new photographic films released in 2025, so far.

More about film, film cameras and old gear in general in CamerAgX.com:

Fujifilm Instax Printer: the gift that keeps on giving

Paris – Canal de l’Ourq – Leica CL – Summicron 40mm

Fujifilm – AX-5 to X-A5 with a stop at X-M1.

You have to love Fujifilm’s math. In the fall of 2024, they’ve released a new entry level APS-C mirrorless camera, the X-M5, which has been positively received by the pundits. In a way, it’s a combination of the characteristics of two defunct models, the X-M1 and the X-A5.

I don’t own a X-M5 – and I don’t see why I would need to buy one at this juncture – but I’ve owned a X-M1 for a short while, and still use (and mostly like) the X-A5.

A quick review of the Fujifilm X-A5

In the days when the resolution of the sensors was low (12 or 16 Megapixel for an APS-C sized sensor), moire was a big issue, and camera makers had to place a low pass filter in front of the sensor of their cameras to mitigate the issue. But placing a low pass filter in front of the sensor limited the resolution of the images it produced even more. By developing their own Trans-X filter array as a substitute to the Bayer array that everybody else was using, Fujifilm was able to defeat moire without needing a low pass filter – boosting the real life resolution of their cameras. The X-Pro or the X-T1, for instance, were supposed to deliver images of the same quality as a full frame camera, because the performance of their sensor was not choked by a low pass filter.

It was a big thing 12 years ago. And as a result, Fujifilm’s Trans-X models could be sold at a premium.

Fujifilm X-A5 and XC 15-45mm power zoom. Equivalent to a 23-70mm on a 35mm camera.

In 2014, having launched the X-Pro, the X-100S and the X-T1, Fujifilm was ready to make Trans-X more accessible, and launched what could be described as a “premium entry level” model, the X-M1. Followed a few weeks later by its less fortunate little brother, the X-A1, where the Trans-X sensor had been replaced by a Bayer sensor. Premium vs Basic. Trans-X vs Bayer. Expensive vs cheap. As a premium entry level model, the X-M1 was not very successful, and the X-M line was abandoned rapidly. The X-A1, on the other hand, met its public, and was followed by a long line of models – the X-A2, X-A3, X-A10, X-A5 and finally the X-A7.

I’ve always liked small cameras, and I had bought a nice second hand X-M1. With a good lens and a static subject, image quality was extremely good (it shared its 16 Megapixel sensor with with X-Pro and the X-100S), but it was one of the Fujifilm cameras that had not transitioned to phase detection autofocus, and its contrast detection algorithm was slow and not very accurate – the camera’s keep rate on moving subjects was really bad, and I sold it rapidly (the same can be said of the original X-100 – I loved the images it produced, but far too many of them were out of focus).

The LCD display is articulated, and bright enough. Two control wheels on the right (the silver one is horizontal, the black one vertical). Not that common on entry level cameras.

The X-A line was probably the last to adopt Phase Detection autofocus in the Fujifilm line up, but when it did with the X-A5, it made all the difference. It’s a reactive and precise machine, and a joy to use.

Being a “A” model, it does not benefit from a Trans-X sensor, but with 24 Megapixels, its Bayer matrix sensor does not need a low pass filter and image quality is very similar to what you would get from a Trans-X camera like the X-H1 or the X-T3.

It’s an entry level model, but it’s not overly de-contented – and it’s built of good quality components (the rear display is articulated, and usable even under a bright sunshine). It’s a true Fujifilm camera, designed to produce Jpegs that can be used “out of the camera”, with all sorts of film simulations to personalize your images.

It comes with a 15-45mm collapsible Power Zoom, (the XC15-45mmF3.5-5.6 OIS PZ) which is very compact and produces images of good quality. I had used another copy of that zoom on a X-T1 a few years ago, and while the image quality was really good, I had been irritated by the “fly by wire” control of the focal length, at the same time too slow and over-reactive. I had also noticed it drained the battery of the camera rather rapidly. No such issue on the copy I’m using on the X-A5 (maybe the firmware of the lens has been refined, maybe shooting without a viewfinder forces the photographer to operate more slowly and masks the over-reactivity of the commands). In any case, its small size makes it a good fit for the X-A5. The body+lens combination is smaller than a Fujifilm X-100 – and than the most compact of the manual focus SLRs of the late seventies (Olympus OM-2 or Nikon FM).

Smaller than a “pancake” – a filter lens (fixed focus, F:8).

Without an electronic viewfinder but with a power zoom, the X-A5 is definitely in a different category than an X-T or X-H camera. Fewer controls are available (no AE or AF lock buttons, no joystick, for instance), but the touch screen is very usable, the Q menus easy to navigate, and the two control wheels let the photographer adjust all the important parameters (speed or aperture or exposure compensation) on the fly. Ultimately, it’s a trade-off: it’s a small and light camera, and even if it’s not as powerful as a “big” X-T or X-H with a constant aperture zoom, it will be far less of a pain to carry around, and it is my camera of choice for casual photography.

The most serious gripe I have is not directly at the camera, but at the inconsistency of the way the aperture is set on Fujifilm lenses. If you’ve started using Fujifilm cameras with the X-Pro or the X-T1 and fixed focal length lenses (or one of Fujifilm’s high-end constant aperture zooms), you’ve been used to setting the aperture on the aperture ring of the lens, like you would have done with a manual focus SLR in the seventies. But cheaper sliding aperture zooms have an aperture ring with no marking, and entry level zooms (like the one coming with the X-A5) have no aperture ring at all. Which means you must use the control wheel to set the aperture , and check the aperture value on the rear LCD display. At the top of that, the control wheels are not always located at the same place on the body of the camera. It depends on the model. It’s not an issue if you shoot exclusively with an X-A5, but confusing if you alternate between a “big” X-T (or X-H) and a “small” X-A5 body, or between expensive and cheaper lenses.

This tiny lens is available in Japan. It gives the “sixties Instamatic” look to your pictures.

When you’ve used a recent Fujifilm camera (anything they’ve launched in the last four years), you’ve most probably connected the camera to your smartphone using Fujifilm X-App, which takes advantage of Bluetooth and Wifi to make photo transfers, remote control and firmware upgrades with ease. That’s something that you will miss on the X-A5, which has to rely on the older and more cumbersome Cam Remote.

The X-A5 is a tad too big to be the camera I always carry with me – that would be role of the Olympus Tough TG-4 or the Fujifilm XQ2 if I was not so lazy and generally used my phone to take pictures – but it’s a good camera for casual sorties – like a walk in an old neighborhood or a week-end in an interesting city – when I don’t want to schlepp a bigger X-T and its heavier lens. Even with the 15-45 kit lens, you don’t lose much in terms of image quality. Overall, it’s a very pleasant camera, and a keeper.

The X-A5 was launched in 2018 and replaced with the X-A7 in 2020. It can be bought second hand for approx. $300.00 (body only), while nice copies can fetch up to $500.00 with the kit lens and OEM batteries and chargers.

What about the X-M5? It’s an M series camera, and as such it benefits from a Trans-X sensor, in this case the 26 Megapixel chip also seen on the X-T4. And its video section has been seriously beefed up, because that’s what the market is asking for at the moment. As Fujifilm’s entry level camera, it has been priced very aggressively, and if it’s as good (compared to its peers from other brands) as the X-A5 was six years ago, Fujifilm got themselves a winner.

Marietta – GA – Not bad for an entry level mirrorless camera (Fujifilm X-A5, XC15-45 Power Zoom)

Marietta, GA – Fujifilm X-A5 and XC15-45 Power Zoom.

APS-C – what does it mean? A long time ago, when film was still king, Kodak and the leading camera makers decided to launch a new film format, which was supposed to address some of the shortcomings of the well known 135 (aka 35mm) film format, save on silver halide, and bring more revenue. That format was named APS.

The film (and the cassette containing it) were smaller than the conventional 35mm film and cartridge. APS cameras offered the choice of three form factors: the default showed the same 3:2 proportions as the 35mm negatives or slides, but at a reduced 0.66 scale. It was named APS-C. A second form factor, APS-H, placed the images in a frame of 16:9 proportions and APS-P produced panoramic pictures.

When camera makers started designing dSLRs in the late nineteen nineties, the chip foundries could not manufacture full size sensors (sensors of the same size as a 35mm negative) at a remotely acceptable cost. Nikon and Canon had to adopt smaller sensors, which were roughly the size of the APS-C negatives. It became a sort of standard, and we still use “APS-C’ to designate an image sensor of 24x16mm. Approximately 10 years later, sufficient progress had been made in the chip foundries to make “full-frame” sensors commercially viable. Today, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony sell interchangeable lens cameras of two sensor sizes, APS-C, and Full-Frame. Fujifilm is primarily selling cameras with APS-C sized sensors.

Fujica AX-5 and Fujifilm X-A5. Fujifilm have been in business for almost a century, and at some point sold their cameras under the Fujica brand. They later sold them as “Fuji” before settling on “Fujifilm”, right when the market started moving to digital. Go figure. But they’ve always had a fondness for the letter “X”. In the late seventies/early eighties, they had a whole range of SLRs named AX-something (AX-1, AX-3, AX-5, AX Multi…). They were not bad by the standards of the time, but certainly not as good or popular as their competitors from Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax.

An APS-C digital camera smaller than a 35mm SLR (the Fujica AX-5) : not that frequent, unfortunately.

Mission Concepcion – San Antonio, TX. Fujifilm X-A5 and 15-45mm lens. There was some clutter at the left of the stairs. It was removed in post processing by Lightroom’s AI.

More pictures in CamerAgX’s Flickr gallery

One last look at 2024….

This blog is running on WordPress, and they provide basic statistics about this site’s traffic, that I’m sharing with you.

Approximately 52,000 of you visited Cameragx.com last year, for a total number of 69,000 page views. Those numbers have been fairly constant over the last few post-COVID years. Thank you.

As can be expected (since this blog is written in English), traffic is originating primarily from English speaking countries.

More interesting is to look at the most popular posts.

Pentax P30, Fuji STX-2, Yashica FX-3 Super 2000, all entry level, manual focus, single lens reflex cameras primarily used by learners, and less expensive than the Canon AE-1 that people new to film photography tend to buy as their first film camera.

A few years ago, there was more interest in Nikon cameras, and less in Pentax SLRs.

the same stats collected in January 2020

There seems to be a constant interest for all things Fujica, Fuji and Fujifilm – I happen to like to current crop of Fujifilm digital cameras, and a few of their SLRs from the seventies – I still believe that the ST-801 is an all time great. In-between, there are cameras like the bayonet mount SLRs from the late seventies (the AX series) which are not very well known, and for which CamerAgX is one of the rare sources of information. By the way, the index of all the cameras reviewed in those columns has been updated recently.

Recently, I’ve introduced more content related to digital cameras or to the digital workflow, but I’ll keep on reviewing film cameras in the future as well – with a focus on relatively unknown, still inexpensive, really compact cameras of the eighties and nineties.

Feel free to provide suggestions.

That being said, I wish you a Happy New Year, and plenty of success in your photographic endeavours.

X.T.

Tokyo – Tea at the Hamarikyu Gardens – Fujifilm X-T4

Tokyo – sake barrels at the Meiji Jingu – Fujifilm X-T4

Fujifilm Instax Printer: the gift that keeps on giving

You “take” pictures, but how do you “give back” to the people you’ve just photographed? Here is a suggestion: print the pictures, and give the prints, on the spot, right after you’ve shot them. It’s a nice gift to family and friends with whom you’re sharing good moments, and to the people who have generously let you capture their image, and, maybe, a bit of their soul.

Very few people still create photo albums. Because nobody has prints. Composing a photo-album online takes time, effort and money, and it can be one to two weeks before you receive it. Printing a selection of images on a pocket printer is an easy way to create pocketable photo albums with no hassle; wherever, just when you feel like it, for not much money. Instant gratification.

No Campbell Soup for you – the mini Link 3 is about twice the size of a compact camera. It’s totally wireless and the battery is good for 100 prints between two charges.

There are many more ways to use those mini-prints: in Japan school girls insert their Instax prints in plastic cases that they use to accessorize their bags, and I create my own personalized luggage tags – you won’t confuse my suitcase with anybody else’s. Your imagination is the limit.

How does it work?

Fujifilm sell their instant film in 3 sizes: Instax Mini (the image is roughly the size of a business card), Instax Square (a bit larger, and square), and Instax Wide (twice the size of the Mini). They manufacture cameras for each of the three formats, as well as dedicated portable printers.

Comparing print sizes: Polaroid SX-70 vs Fujifilm Instax Square vs Fujifilm Instax mini.

Other makers of pocketable printers use different technologies (zero ink paper, generally) but with Fujifilm, it’s about silver halide, of course. Once a print is ejected from the printer, the image needs a few minutes to fully develop, but it’s part of the magic of instant film. Today we’ll focus on Fujifilm’s Instax Mini Link 3. It’s a pocketable, battery operated printer, that, when paired with a smartphone and loaded with a 10 print Instax Mini pack, will print business card size pictures. Of course, there’s an Instax Mini Link app to download and install on your smartphone.

Images can be printed directly from the photo gallery of the mobile device (with Fujifilm’s default settings), but the output will be better if you first bring the images in the Mini Link app, play with the contrast slider (I always boost it a notch), and print them from there.

The Mini Link app. For me “Simple Print” will do.

In my experience, the Mini Link transposes the colors and the exposure of the original picture accurately, and its prints are more defined and massively nicer than what you would get if you took a picture with a Fujifilm Instax camera. The Instax film is a much better performer than the very basic Fujifilm cameras designed to consume it, and the printer takes advantage of its potential. When you start from a good picture taken by a smartphone (or a dedicated camera), you’ll be happy with the prints.

The mini Link app and its basic settings.

I understand why people use instant cameras. There is a “fun”, almost magic component to it. But instant cameras are bulky, the quality of the prints generally poor, and if by pure luck you get an interesting picture, it will be unique, and the only way to share it will be to take a photo of it with a smartphone, and print the copies. From a totally dispassionate point of view, it’s a rather inefficient and wasteful way to use a pack of film.

No such issue with the Instax printer. You lose some of the magic – it’s not as “immediate” as pushing the shutter button on a Instax camera and the results are not as unpredictable – but you only print your good images after you’ve had an opportunity to crop them and tweak the exposure parameters on your smartphone. Your “keeper” rate will be very close to 100%, and you will print as many copies as your budget (and your patience) allow.

The image is being printed. It only takes a few seconds.

There is not much else to say about the Mini Link. It simply works. Prints are small and but good enough for the intended use – reminiscing of good times spent with loved ones, and instantly sharing a token of appreciation.

The mini print and one of the mini photo albums proposed by Fujifilm. This one is not particularly nice but came for free with an Instax camera.

The Mini Link 3 comes in three different colors (mine is “matcha green”) and sells for approximately $100. Prints cost a bit less than $1.00 each. I’m leaving mine permanently in my photo bag, and share the love whenever I can.

Hybrid Instax cameras: In addition to conventional “analog” Instax cameras and pocketable printers, Fujifilm also has a few hybrid Instax cameras in its lineup (Instax LiPlay, Instax Evo). Hybrids can be described as Instax printers, with a tiny 5 Megapixel sensor and a lens in the front, and a small color display at the back, packaged as a compact integrated device. The camera captures a digital image, that the photographer can evaluate on the color display, and decide to print, or not to print. Because the images are captured as digital files and saved on a micro-SD card, they can be edited, printed once or multiple times (in camera), and uploaded to a smartphone.

Zero Ink paper – if you over simplify, it’s not dissimilar to the thermal printer technology used to print receipts at the cash register or at the gas pump. But nicer, and more stable over time. The photo paper contains microscopic dye crystals that are initially colorless, and change color when they are heated. I had tested a Zero Ink (Zink) printer from Polaroid a long time ago. The prints aged well. Polaroid, Kodak and Canon are currently selling pockable printers integrating Zink technologies.

The compact digital camera – in demand but not available

Compact cameras – digital cameras with fixed lenses that could fit in pocket – are in high demand, but unavailable. Fujifilm can’t meet the demand for its most recent X100, Canon’s G7x is always out of stock, the Panasonic LX 100 Model II is no longer available.

Fujifilm XQ2 (left) and Z1000EXR – the 12 Mpix XQ2 produces much better images than the 16Mpix Z1000.

Cameras manufacturers have retreated almost completely from the compact digital camera market (the “point and shoot” of yore), and very few are still offering “premium” or “niche” compact cameras. The smartphone is king, the historical camera makers seem to believe they can’t compete with the thousands of software engineers working for Apple and Google, and are leaving them all the space.

But as good as they are, the smartphones are still limited by their ergonomics (you need two hands, one to hold the phone, one to tap, pinch, swipe or whatever), their absence of long telephoto lens and viewfinder, and their relative frailness. They offer very little in terms of direct controls – they’re extremely capable, but you have to trust them. At the top of that, they’re expensive. And we depend so much on them that we don’t want to risk them on the beach or while rock climbing.

Nelson’s Dockyard – Antigua – shot with a Fujifilm QX2

There is still room for small but good quality cameras, with good ergonomics an a complete set of controls.

The camera companies are primarily focused on the full frame, interchangeable lens camera market, but full frame ILCs are not really pocketable. Their little brothers with APS-C sensors are smaller, but not by much. Even the Fujifilm X100 is still too large to fit in a coat pocket.

So, what’s left? In the cheap point and shoot camera segment, only a few cameras proudly wearing famous brand names such as Kodak or Minolta. I’ve read relatively good reviews of the Kodak Pixpro cameras, but they’re very basic and you can’t expect too much from their tiny sensor.

Olympus (now OM-System) is still leading the fray when it comes to rugged, waterproof cameras – the Tough TG, currently in its 7th iteration – has discouraged all competition.

Fujifilm XQ2 with the WP-XQ1 waterproof case.

It leaves us with the premium category – with the cameras from Canon, Panasonic and Leica largely unobtainable, and Sony’s RX100 series in a state of virtual monopoly.

Older versions of the cameras listed above can be found on the second hand market, but you have to understand what you’re losing by going for a five or ten year old camera:

Video capabilities – most of the progress in recent years has been in that area,
Easier Bluetooth and WiFi connectivity, with a better integration with smartphone apps,
Reactivity (autofocus),
Quality of the JPEGs (“out of the box”) thanks to better processing engines – you won’t need to process RAW files as frequently

Fujifilm z1000 (left) and iPhone 15 Pro (right). Today a standard sized iPhone can be bigger than a dedicated camera.

More conventional P&S such as the Canon Powershoot S90 or S120; the Sony HX and WX series, Nikon’s Coolpix 9000 series are somehow cheaper, but they’re also more limited: the last models were launched in pre-COVID days, and they have tiny sensors and relatively slow zooms – which makes the use of a flash a necessity in low light.

You could also look for a compact film camera. At the top of the heap the Contax T series reigns supreme (but these cameras are now extremely expensive), followed by a group of still expensive models from Nikon (35ti, 28ti), Leica (Minilux), Ricoh (the GR1), Konica (the Big Mini) and others from Minolta or Olympus.

But those cameras are now twenty five year old at best – and some of their components didn’t age well (electronics in general and LCDs in particular). Most of those models have at least one big flaw that makes buying them at today’s prices a risky proposition (and even if it works today, will the camera work tomorrow?). The cost of film is also an issue (we’re currently trending towards a total cost of $1.00 per scanned image).

Olympus Tough TG-4 – generations differ by their sensors and processing engines, but the fundamentals of the camera have not changed since the TG-1.

What am I shooting with when I don’t use my smartphone, and can’t bring a mirrorless camera? I have a bit of everything in my bag. I tested (but did not keep) a Nikon J1 and I kept but don’t use a tiny Fujifilm z1000EXR – they’re cute but the quality of the images they were delivering was sub-par. I still use a very compact Fujifilm XQ2 – a sort of semi-premium homage to Sony’s RX100, and an Olympus Tough TG-4. They’re pocketable, produce images which are not as nice as what a recent iPhone can deliver but look more natural, and are a pleasure to use. I found an original Fujifilm waterproof case for the XQ2, and even with the case, it remains reasonably compact, if not pocketable. As for the Olympus, I’m waiting impatiently for my next trip to the beach to test it in its element – but it has already earned his stripes as a carry-along camera for my hikes in the nearby parks.

Chattahoochee National Recreation Area – Olympus TG-4

Chattahoochee National Recreation Area – the bamboo forest – Olympus TG-4

Looking for my next “serious” digital camera

It’s not that I’m competitive, or that I carve for attention. But when I travel with my better half, she also takes pictures, and good ones at that. She has no interest at all in the technicalities of photography, but she has a good eye. And with an iPhone, that’s enough to get very good pictures, most of the time.
Within a few minutes of the picture being shot, it’s posted on one or two social networks, “liked” and commented.
Now, imagine yourself shooting with a 10 year old dSLR, in RAW, of course. You won’t get usable pictures until you’re back home, and find the time to fire up your laptop and launch Lightroom. By the time you’re done, your pictures will be yesterday’s news. Or most probably, last week’s.

The manufacturers of conventional cameras have understood that, and are slowly addressing the problem. The newest digital cameras are much better at uploading the freshly shot images to a smartphone, and they’ve improved their jpeg rendering enough that shooting RAW is not an absolute necessity, and that Jpegs are usable straight out of camera most of the time.

High level, I was happy with my Fujifilm X-T1, but I was ready for something a bit more recent, with a better viewfinder than my X-T1’s. I was still missing the large top of the plate display of the enthusiast oriented dSLRs, and I wanted a better integration with smartphone apps.

So I purchased a very nice Fujifilm X-H1 on eBay, The X-H1 was Fuji’s flagship camera in 2018 – with a 24 Megapixel sensor and – a first for Fujifilm – in body image stabilization. The fit and finish was splendid, the viewfinder much better than the X-T1’s, and the images were stunning – straight out of the camera. But I was extremely disappointed by the battery life of the camera. In the real life, not even 100 pictures per battery charge. I admit I’ve been spoiled with Nikon dSLR and their 1000 shots per charge, but 100 was definitely too little – imagine the logistical nightmare if travelling for a few days in a place without easy access to electricity – having to carry something like six batteries, two chargers, a few power banks to feed the chargers … No way.

So, maybe a dSLR was the solution after all. I still love shooting with a reflex camera – the optical viewfinder of a full frame is a pure delight for the eyes – and over the years I have accumulated a large number of Nikon F lenses. And I feel at home with a Nikon. Every command at the right place. I found a well used Nikon D750 at MPB, and started using it. The battery life was what I expected from a Nikon dSLR, and it was a pleasure to shoot with. But…. there was a long list of “buts”.

It’s not that the camera is large or heavy (in fact, the D750 and its descendant the D780 are the smallest and lightest full frame dSLRs from Nikon, on par with Canon’s smallest and lightest, the EOS 6D), but the lenses are big and ponderous. The more recent, the larger and the heavier. As for my old cherished lenses, they may be smaller and lighter, but they’re a bit overwhelmed by the 24 Megapixel sensor.

You may consider that Fujifilm’s “film simulations” are just brilliant marketing, and that Nikon’s Picture Control does more or less the same (preparing JPEGS usable straight out of the camera). But in reality, Picture Controls are not as easy to use (and not as good) as Fuji’s simulated film, and – in my opinion – the D750 still gives you better results if you shoot RAW and massage your pictures to taste in Lightroom.

Lastly, the D750 is still tied to Nikon’s ancient WMU (Wireless Mobile Unit) mobile app, and the less said about it, the better. This camera was launched in 2014, and it shows.

So, now what? I sold the X-T1, I sold the X-H1, I sold the D750, and finally purchased a lightly used Fujifilm X-T4 and a wide angle zoom. The X-T4 is still small for a modern mirrorless camera, the viewfinder is beautiful, the fit and finish impressive, and the battery life is correct (I did not feel the need to buy a second battery yet, and you can charge it directly from a USB source).

Admittedly, there is no top plate display, but almost all of the exposure parameters are controlled by dials on the top plate. If you buy a Fujifilm lens of the XF series, aperture is controlled by a ring around the lens, which is very intuitive if you’ve worked with film cameras in the pre-autofocus days. Zooms with a sliding aperture (like the 18-55 f/2.8-4) have an unmarked aperture ring, but the recent constant aperture zooms and the fixed focal lenses have easy to read aperture markings.

Because the camera is built around an APS-C image sensor, its lenses are much smaller than optics designed for a full frame camera.

Out of camera, the JPEGs are very good, and there are many film simulations to play with. Lastly, the smartphone app (Xapp) is a significant improvement over the old Camera Remote.

I’m just at the beginning of my new digital journey. I need to test all those film simulations, and I have to create a new workflow, laptop free and Lightroom Classic free. A workflow only relying on iOS devices (iPhone, iPad) and on the mobile version of Lightroom.

Pictures shot in Marietta, GA – Fujifilm XT-4 – default settings

Fujifilm X-100 – a rangefinder camera for the rest of us?

If like me you’ve used primarily single lens reflex cameras in the time of film, and dSLRs or mirrorless systems after switching to digital, using a rangefinder camera with an optical viewfinder has always been a challenge. I have a Leica CL that I bought second hand a long time ago when I was living a few blocks from an official Leica store (temptation was permanent, I could not resist), but I don’t use it much. Recently, I tried to use a fully restored Canon QL17 (the Canonet GIII, the most sought after model), but in one year I may have taken 20 pictures at the most, and I don’t know how many more months (or years) I’ll need to take the remaining 16 and have the film processed.

DSCF7241 — *Family Reunion. Fujifilm X100*

On the one hand, I like those cameras – they’re compact, silent, and their direct optical viewfinder is easier on the eyes than the focusing screen of the SLRs. Their field of view is greater than the lens in use, and you also see what is going on outside of the frame: it helps me with the composition of the image, and it will help street photographers better anticipate the action.

*Fujifilm X100T – the optical viewfinder – the white frame and the various indications are a digital overlay – you can see the lens hood in the lower right corner of the image.*

But it comes at a cost. You have no idea what the depth of field will be like, and if you forget to adjust the focus (which happens to me frequently in the heat of the action), you’ll find out about your mistake when you download your scans, a few weeks too late. There’s a steep learning curve – I find that with a rangefinder camera it’s much more difficult to anticipate what a photo will look like than with an SLR, and in my opinion, a film rangefinder camera has to be used a lot, if you want your success rate to approach what you get with a single lens reflex camera.

*The Fujifilm 100T – the electronic viewfinder – not different from what you get with millions of mirrorless cameras.*

In 2010, Fujifilm tried a new approach – they developed a compact camera, the X100, with an hybrid viewfinder – that could be switched from a rather conventional direct optical mode, to a more contemporaneous electronic mode (an EVF). Since the camera also had a 2.8 inch LCD display at the back, the photographer could use the camera in three totally different ways: like an auto-focus point and shoot of the film era (with the optical viewfinder), like a simple digicam (composing on the LCD) or like a good mirrorless camera (with the EVF).

2016-11-NYC-2-71 — *Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade – NYC (2016)- Fujifim X100*

The camera looked like a rangefinder camera from the seventies, and was graced with an analog interface (aperture ring, shutter speed knob), but it was a modern inside, with a very good 12 Megapixel APS-C sensor, and the four PASM exposure modes a photographer expects on a digital camera.

I had a X100 for a few years. It was a great camera for casual portraits, family reunions, or impromptu landscape. Being small and almost silent, it did not draw attention. But its auto-focus was extremely slow and incapable of detecting where the subject was without human assistance, and I was still missing too many pictures – as soon as the subject was moving or was not centered, in fact.

2016-11-NYC-2-7 — *Hotel Hudson, NY – Fujifim X100*

So I finally upgraded to the third generation of the model, the X100T (the X100S is the Second, the X100T the Third, the X100F the Fourth…it’s easy) and I finally have a optical viewfinder camera that gives me a good success rate (let’s say 90% of the pictures are correctly exposed and in focus, which is a huge improvement over the 30% success rate I used to get with the Leica CL).

DSCF7334 — *Dragon Con 2016 – Atlanta – Fujifilm X100*

Apart from the autofocus, the other big difference between the first and the third generation is the sensor – the X100 still has a conventional 12 Megapixel sensor (with the so-called Bayer matrix), while the X100T has a 16 Megapixel sensor with Phase Detection pixels (to accelerate the auto-focus process) and Fujifilm’s patented Trans-X matrix. The X100T is also the first the X100 series to offer the ability to connect over WiFi to transfer images to a smartphone, which is extremely convenient when you travel without a laptop. (*)

fujix100t-6708 — *It may look like a small point and shoot from the early seventies – but it’s packed with modern technology. Here, the model T from 2014.*

If you use the X100 with the EVF, a recent version (X100S and better) will be reactive enough and provide an experience very similar to what a very light and very compact mirrorless camera with a 35mm fixed focal lens (full frame equivalent) would bring. But the real fun is to use the optical viewfinder.

DSCF7337 — *Dragon Con 2016 – Atlanta – Fujifilm X100*

Like often with optical viewfinders, the view of the lower right edge of the image is masked by the lens hood, and of course, you never visualize what part of the image will be in focus, and what part will not. But you get the benefit of a clear, un-intermediated view of your subject. Sure, you have to learn – from experience – when you can let the auto-focus and the auto-exposure modes play their magic, and when to take control back from them. There’s a learning curve, but at the end of the curve, lies the reward.

fujix100t-6711 — *Where the magic happens – push the lever to switch from the optical viewfinder to the EVF – and back.*

How much?

Of course, the X100 can be bought new – the current model (the X100V) sells for approximately $1,400. Brand new copies of older models can be found for approx. $1,000 (X100 F).

Used models are a bit cheaper, in the $800s for the X100F.

The X100S and the X100T are technically very close, and sell for anything between $450 and $700, depending on condition, on the second hand market.

The first X100 is a sort of classic and sells for approximately $300.00. It’s slow, but it still makes great pictures – if your subject is not too mobile.

fujix100t-6716 — Fujifilm X100T – a “real” shutter speed knob and a “genuine” aperture ring – for when Programmed Auto Exposure is not good enough – Beware: the exposure compensation dial (bottom right) is very soft – it tends to move to + or – territory on its own…

There is another a difference between the X100S and the X100T – the so-called “electronic rangefinder” of the latter:

a clarification first – simple cameras (such as a Kodak Instamatic or the Rollei 35) have a direct optical viewfinder. Its most refined implementation, “the bright-line viewfinder, is essentially an inverted Galilean telescope system with an optically projected rectangle outlining the frame area”. (Encyclopaedia Britannica); they are NOT rangefinder cameras, because they’re missing … the rangefinder.
the Leica M is the perfect example of a rangefinder camera. Its direct optical viewfinder is supplemented by a coupled optical telemeter, the rangefinder, which assists with focusing.
technically, the X100 and the X100S are NOT rangefinder cameras: they’re cameras with a direct optical viewfinder, supplemented with an electronic auto-focus system (contrast detection for the X100, contrast and phase detection for the X100S).
With the X100T (and all following models), the photographer can enable an “electronic rangefinder” if working with the optical viewfinder in manual focus mode – it’s a very small EVF display projected in the bottom right corner of the optical image, that shows an enlarged view of the section of the image that the photographer will focus on. As per Fujifilm, “this makes manual focusing while using the optical viewfinder much easier, and more like a mechanical rangefinder”.

In my opinion, on a Fujifilm X100, it’s more a marketing gimmick than anything else; if you really want to focus manually, switch to the EVF. Interestingly, the “rangefinder emulation” is also available on other Fujifilm X cameras, (the ones with interchangeable lenses), even those with an EVF and no optical viewfinder.

*Fujifilm X100T – Optical Viewfinder – AF-S mode.*

*Fujifilm X100T – EVF (manual focus) with focusing aid set to “Focus Peak Highlight – Red”. There are other options (Standard and Split Image MF Assist modes are also available)*

*Fujifilm X100 in manual focus mode – Optical viewfinder with “electronic rangefinder insert”*

More about Fujifim’s digital cameras in CamerAgX

In the series …. shooting pictures in Atlanta in times of social distancing…. All those places are generally magnets for residents and tourists alike, and would have been packed in normal circumstances.

ATL_F100T-8203 — *Atlanta – Memorial Day Week-End – Little Five Points – Fujifilm X100T*

ATL_F100T-8208 — *Atlanta – Memorial Day Week-End – Inman Park – Fujifilm X100T*

ATL_F100T-8213 — *Atlanta – Memorial Day Week-End – Centennial Park – Fujifilm X100T*

ATL_F100T-8216 — *Atlanta – Memorial Day Week-End – Centennial Park – Fujifilm X100T*

*Warner Robbins USAF Museum (May 2025) – Fujifilm X100T – even in this poorly lit museum, the camera delivers stunning pictures.*

*Warner Robbins USAF Museum (May 2025) – Fujifilm X100T – I keep on using this camera regularly – it’s a great do-it all and I don’t see the need for an upgrade.*

Who still makes “amateur color film” today?

With smart phones and wireless Internet connections being cheap and ubiquitous, billions of human beings have access to an always available camera of very decent quality and can easily share the pictures they shoot via messaging, photo sharing or social networking apps.

I don’t think there is any geography where film photography is still broadly considered an easier to use and cheaper alternative to digital (smartphone and digicam) photography.

Some people may still want their 4×6 prints, they may refuse to deal with smartphone apps or with memory cards at the self service kiosk of a pharmacist, and stick to film for those reasons. But there is no doubt that they form a small minority.

The rest of the film photographers are not necessarily enamored with 4×6 prints and don’t refuse to use PCs. They scan film or have it scanned, and insert the resulting files in a digital workflow. For them, there are roughly three options: premium film, boutique film, and expired stock.

premium film is designed to offer the best performance (finest grain, highest dynamic range, most realistic colors, most constant quality), but at twice or three times the price of standard amateur film,
boutique film is produced by small outfits, and prioritize special effects (color rendition and image resolution of the sixties, strong color hues, scratches, ….). Prices are all over the map, with some films in the low-cost category, and others being 4 to 5 times more expensive than the standard amateur film.
The ultimate bargain chasers are looking for expired film, and enjoy the consequences (unpredictable rendering, bizarre color hues).

Where does it leave the typical “amateur” color negative film like Kodak’s Gold and Fujifilm’s Superia, that casual photographers used to trust for their annual family reunions or for the trip of a lifetime ?

Almost nowhere.

Firms like Fujifilm, judging by the type of film they dedicate to this usage, perceive people still sticking to a conventional film processing chain and to 4×6 prints as more price than quality sensitive, and reformulated their Fujicolor 200 ISO stock to make it cheaper to manufacture (it’s now sold as the Fujifilm C200).

Brick and mortar stores only seem to carry old inventory about to expire, the low-cost Fujicolor C200 mentioned above, and sometimes Fujifilm’s Superia X-TRA 400. Online retailers like Amazon or Adorama still carry Kodak Gold and Ultramax, but they also tend to put forward cheaper products from the same manufacturer.

How does it translate in the offer of film?

My observations are based on the US market, and on what the three major photo retailers (Amazon, B&H and Adorama) are offering. The situation may be different in other countries – (Kodak is probably better represented in the US than in the rest of the world, but Fujifilm’s catalog is wider in Japan), and here and there there are small specialized distributors also selling products from smaller brands.

Kodak

The part of the old Kodak Company which is still in the film business is named Kodak Alaris (Alaris belongs to the pension fund of the British employees of the Yellow Giant, but the products I’ve purchased over here are still manufactured in the USA, and sold under the Kodak name).

Looking at their Web site, it’s obvious that Kodak Alaris wants to sell “professional” (understand “premium”) film (Ektar, Porta, TMax and Tri-X). Amateur color print films (Gold 200, Ultramax 400) are impossible to find in the menu hierarchy of the site, or with the built-in search tool. Google Search still returns the spec sheets of all films currently in the catalog of Kodak Alaris (the list includes includes Gold and Ultramax), and the three major photo retailers of the US still sell the whole range of Kodak Alaris products.

Amazon and Adorama are also selling Kodak ColorPlus 200 – but there is no spec sheet on Kodak Alaris site, and it does not seem to be widely available in the US. It’s a budget film – supposedly relying on a simpler/older formula than the Gold 200, and it falls in the same low-cost category as the Fujicolor C200 – you use it if you look for the absolute lowest price (for a Kodak branded product, that is) , or if you want a rendering similar to the one you could get in the eighties/nineties.

Kodak also has a large range of B&W film (Tmax in 100, 400 and 3200 ISO declinations) as well as the old Tri X. They have announced they will soon manufacture slide film (Ektachrome) again.

ektar--3 — Santa Fe (NM) – Car show on the Plaza. Nikon FM – Kodak Ektar 100.

Fujifilm

In the US, Fujifilm have significantly reduced their product range (they have retired most of their Superia color print films last year) – leaving us with only the “low cost” C200 sold at Wal-Mart or CVS (available in 24 exposure cartridges only, manufactured following a simplified formula and replacing the more elaborate and now retired Superia 200), and a single Superia reference, the X-TRA 400 ISO (in packs of three 36 Exposure cartridges only). With Kodak having left the amateur market and deserted the brick and mortar stores, Fujifilm is the only major vendor of general purpose “amateur” color negative film.

Fujifilm only offers a single “professional color negative” film, the Pro H 400, aimed at Portrait photographers, and a single Black and White reference, the Neopan Acros. But they still offer three slide films (Velvia 50, Velvia 100 and Provia 100).

Obviously Fujifilm is more interested in pushing their highly profitable Instax film packs, which are declined in multiple sizes (mini, square, wide), and available in black and white as well as color stock.

NikonF3--4 — Jules – French Bouledogue – Nikon F3 – Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 AI lens – Fujicolor 400

Harman / Ilford

It’s been a very long time since Black and White film was last considered the default choice for the casual “amateur” photographer. And Ilford (now part of the Harman Technology group) does not manufacture or sell color film. But Ilford is worth a mention here: they have the largest catalog of Black and White film (classics like the Pan F, the FP4 or the HP5, fine grain products of the Delta series, and products now unique such as the XP2 (a Chromogenic B&W film that can be processed in the same chain as color print film).

summer2017-r5--24 — Peniscola (Spain) – Canon T90 – Ilford film.

The rest:

Cinestill, Lomography, Revolo, Rollei, fall into the Boutique category. I don’t know much about Boutique film – and now that some of my old favorites are gone (Fuji Reala, Kodak CN400), I tend to stick to Kodak’s Ektar 100, that I use alongside Fujifilm’s Superia 400 and Ilford’s FP4 Plus B&W film.

The costs

I have to admit that I don’t really get this “low cost at all cost” thing: in the US, a 35mm (24 exposures) cartridge sells for anything between $2.75 and $3.50 – with premium film being generally sold in rolls of 36 exposures at prices between $6.75 and $9.90. Worst case, the cost difference between low-cost and premium amounts to $0.20 per exposure.

Processing a single 35mm cartridge will cost approx $8.00 to $10.00, and scanning another $5.00 to $10.00 (postage included). Some processors may advertise cheaper prices, but only scan in low-resolution, or don’t return the negatives (they destroy them), or charge a significant extra fee for the postage or for a higher resolution. All in all, consider that $17.00/cartridge is the best price an occasional/low volume user can get for a decent service (it’s a scale game, and prices get lower when the volume goes up).

And if you spend that much on processing, why not buy the best film you can get?

Where?

Brick and mortar stores (big box and pharmacists): not much to chose from, only Fujifilm’s products.

On line: besides the big Three (Adorama, Amazon, Bhphotovideo), there are a few sites specialized in ‘Boutique” film: Freestyle Photo ; Lomography

ektar--34 — Atlanta – Piedmont Park – Nikon FM – Kodak Ektar 100

Should we start collecting digital cameras?

Collecting is different from hoarding junk.

I’m sure we all have a few compact digital cameras stored in a drawer somewhere, that we don’t use anymore because, let’s be honest, any decent smartphone will do a much better job at taking, editing and publishing pictures than a dedicated compact digital camera sold 10 years ago. It does not make us digital camera collectors. We’re simply consolidating our inventory of obsolete electronics before a future trip to the recycling center.

Samsung Digimax 35 (0.3 MP, 2001), Nikon Coolpix L14 (7 MP, 2007) , Sony DSC-T20(8 MP, 2007), Canon Powershot S400 (2003, 4 MP) and the Palm Treo 600 (0.3 MP, 2004) in the fore plan. Are my old digital cameras collector items, or just drawer-ware?

Collecting implies an intent.

A collection tells a story. The collector assembles objects which are significant for him or her, because of their esthetic or sentimental value, or to satisfy some form of intellectual curiosity. He or she may hope that, over time, objects in his or her collection will gain value, but financial gain is not the primary motive (if it was, he or she would not be a collector, but simply a speculator, a scalper).

We have the benefit of hindsight, and it’s easy to see what makes a particular model of film camera a better collectible than another one. I will group the criteria in three categories:

what the camera was in its early days: its technical significance, its build quality, its beauty, its performance, its cost, its rarity,
what it can do for you now: its usability (are film, batteries and lenses still available for that type of camera), its reliability over the long run, its ability to help you get great pictures, and the satisfaction you derive from using it,
the legend around it: is the brand prestigious, was this model of camera used to shoot a famous picture, or used by a whole generation of war correspondents or reporters, did this particular item belong to a star or a famous criminal?

Obviously, by all three groups of criteria, a Leica M3 will be a better collectible than a mass produced, entry level, plastic bodied and unreliable APS camera from the late nineties.

Venice – Dec 2011 – Sony DSC-T20 (Photo: Valerie M.) A good digicam could take good pictures. A modern smartphone could probably do as well today.

What if we apply the same list of criteria to digital cameras?

what it can do for you now: that’s the biggest issue: older digital cameras are not as good as modern ones. A film camera has the benefit of being different from a modern digital camera with which it can not be directly compared (it’s a different user experience, a different workflow, and the output is somehow different), but an old digital camera can directly be compared to a modern one, and it’s not to its advantage: the resolution and the ability to shoot in low light are massively inferior, and the dynamics of the sensor is much narrower. And to add insult to injury, old digital cameras are also outperformed by smartphones in many casual shooting situations.
Older digital cameras may not be as durable as film cameras – they’re full of electronics, and are generally powered by proprietary batteries that may not age well, and will require specific chargers, specific cables that, if lost, will rapidly become difficult to replace.
Some of the most technically original (and therefore interesting) digital cameras like the Sigma cameras using Foveon sensors or the old Fujifilm S3 or S5 cameras using SuperCCD sensors require specific software to process or get the best of their raw files – but the software may not work with current or future versions of Windows and Mac OS.
what the camera was in its early days: it has to be put in perspective with what it can do now. Does it really matter that a Panasonic compact camera was considered the best compact camera for enthusiasts in the fall of 2005, when it’s in any case outperformed by an iPhone 7 Plus?
By that measure, only a few cameras that made history technically are worth of attention : you can argue that the Nikon D3 changed the way we take pictures in low light and made flash photography obsolete – and as a consequence deserves be part of a collection focused on important digital cameras. Similarly, cameras of an unusual design like the Nikon Coolpix 995 or equipped with a unique sensor that helps create different pictures (like the Sigma Foveon cameras) could become interesting curiosities.
the legend around it: I don’t think any digital camera has reached the legendary status yet. Some cameras may be of special interest to collectors of equipment from a legendary brand – the first digital M camera from Leica, or the last digital camera made by Contax. But so far, I can’t see any digital camera that defines its generation, the way the Leica M3, the Nikon F or the Olympus OM-1 did in their heyday.

What digital camera would I collect?

Pinup and Naomi playing – The oldest jpeg file on my computer’s hard drive – taken in 2002 with a Samsung Digicam 35 camera. 640 x 480 pixels (0.3 Mpx). Does it qualify as a collector, or as junk?

What is important to me is not necessarily what’s important to you. To me, a camera has to be usable for casual photography, at home with my dogs, on a stroll in my neighborhood or while traveling. That’s why, when I shoot with film, I prefer cameras from the late seventies-early eighties to their ancestors of the fifties or sixties, too complex and too slow to operate for my taste.

In the world of digital cameras, I would not buy anything not capable of providing a good 8 x11 print, which places the bar at 6 Megapixels. I would also want the digital camera to be better at doing its job than a smartphone (if it was not, I would never use it and it would collect dust on a shelf): it would need a viewfinder (optical or electronic), and would have access to focal lengths ranging from 24mm to 135mm. I’m not necessarily willing to invest in a whole new system: if the camera accepted interchangeable lenses, I would prefer some compatibility with the lenses I already own (through an adapter, possibly).

Lastly, I’d like the camera to represent a significant step in the evolution of digital cameras, and to have a few unique characteristics that would differentiate it from the mass of the me-too products of its generation.

What camera would qualify? A few Nikon pro cameras from the mid 2000s (D1x, D3) because they pushed the boundaries of image quality and low light capabilities and made the film SLRs and flash photography obsolete, their cousins from Fujifilm (a S5 Pro, maybe) for their original SuperCCD sensor and the unique images it captures, or the Epson R-D1, the first digital rangefinder camera, or one of the most original bridge cameras from Sony, the F828.

Your choice would be different. Up to you.

More about using old digital cameras today: Ashley Pomeroy’s blog – http://women-and-dreams.blogspot.com with interesting reviews of the Fujifilm S series (Fujifilm S1 Pro, Fujifilm S3 Pro, Fujifilm S5 Pro) and its competitors from Nikon (Nikon D1, Nikon D1x).

Venice – Dec 2011 – Sony DSC-T20- (Photo Valerie M.)

Fujifilm and the instant film bonanza

The Photokina took place in Cologne a few weeks ago. To a large extent, it was a Fujikina. Fujifilm announced a brand new medium format digital system, and presented a black and white version of their Instax Mini film. And they pre-announced a square (6cm by 6cm) version of their Instax Color film. And special editions (Michael Kors, Colette, ..) of their Instax instant film cameras. At the same time, Leica was showing a Leica branded Fujifilm camera (the Leica Sofort), a clone of the Fuji Instax Mini 90 Neo Classic, with Leica branded black and white and color instant film.

Instax Mini Film - Holga 120 CFN camera with Holga 120 -IB back — Instax Mini Film – Holga 120 CFN camera with Holga 120 -IB back.

Fujifilm has been in the instant film business for a very long time – with their own technology and through cross licensing agreements with Polaroid. Until April 2016 Fuji was still producing peel apart film compatible with Polaroid pack film cameras and backs, years after Polaroid themselves had ceased to manufacture instant film. As a sidebar, the conventional Polaroid film was called peel-apart film, because the photographer had to wait for the image to be processed, and then had to peel a sort of negative apart from the developed picture on paper. A more modern implementation of instant photography is the “integral” film, in which the picture itself contains all the chemicals needed for an automatic development of the photo.

Fujifilm’s integral film success story started at the end of the nineties, when they introduced the Instax Mini, a new small size instant film system in Japan (the Instax Mini image size is approx 6 x 4.5cm, and as a consequence the size of the cameras can be kept reasonably small). The system was adopted with enthusiasm by pre-teen and teen age Japanese girls, and Fuji has been very intelligently building on this initial success to convert foreign and older customers (first in Asia, and more recently in the West). In addition to the Instax Mini film, Fujifilm also introduced Instax Wide films and cameras. The Instax Wide image is larger than the Mini’s (twice the size at 10cm x 6cm), but the cameras are anything but pocket friendly.

The growth has been phenomenal (3.8 Million cameras sold in 2014, 5 million in 2015, and on target to 6 million in 2016).

sales_Instax_other — Sales of Fujifilm Instax cameras – 1998 to 2014. The sales volume in 2014 is 3.87 million. Source: Fuji film

Those volumes are far from being negligible if compared to the 40 million digital cameras sold in 2015.

More important still for Fujifilm’s bottom line, instant film photography is a repeat business: each camera consumes film, and a pack of Instax Mini film which costs approximately US$ 10.00 is only good for… 10 pictures.

On the instant film market, Fuji has only one competitor: The Impossible Project, aka TIP. TIP took over a Polaroid plant in the Netherlands when Polaroid left the film business, and started manufacturing their own integral films (they don’t have the original Polaroid recipes, their films are their own creations). I had tested their first black and white integral film just after they started their business a few years ago – and I had not been impressed. They have improved their products massively in terms of predictability and usability, and they’ve extended their product line to include color films and to support more models of Polaroid cameras; I’ve seen really beautiful pictures made with their current line of films. However, compared to Fujifilm, they remain a small scale operations with expensive products and a very limited distribution network. As opposed to Fujifilm, The Impossible Project can only propose one model to people who want to buy a new camera. Their customers still primarily use very capable but old SX70 and 600 Polaroid cameras – which are still abundant on the used market, but don’t have a reputation for aging gracefully.

holga2 — Holga 120 with 120-IB Instax back.

Lomography (the promoters of Lo-Fi photography and makers of the Lomo, Holga, Diana and Belair cameras) have developed two lines of instant film cameras, one for the Instax Mini film, one for the Instax Wide, as well as add-on backs for the Holga, the Diana and the Belair. They offer more control to the photographer but they don’t have the reputation of being user friendly or to offer consistent results. More about it below.

Lastly, a cottage industry has been busy refurbishing old Polaroid cameras (for use with The Impossible Project’s film or with Instax), and converting old medium format cameras – in particular the Mamiya Press – to Instax film. For all sorts of reasons, Fujifilm recently stopped producing the conventional peel and apart instant film that many lovers of high quality instant photography were using. Since Fujifilm’s own Instax Wide cameras are rather basic, the best option for serious photographers is to convert old medium format cameras to accept Fuji’s integral film. At the moment, it’s a very limited market – the cameras capable of taking advantage of the size of the Instax Wide film are necessarily very large, heavy, and difficult to use, and the conversion is as expensive as the camera itself. But the release of the Instax Square film in 2017 will open the door for the conversion to integral film of smaller 6×6 and 6×7 cameras. If the Instax Square cartridge is designed like the Instax Mini, cameras with a deep interchangeable back will be the easiest to convert. It’s time to buy a good medium format SLR system before the prices go up.

Jules (French Bouledogue). Holga camera with defective shutter.

A few weeks ago, I wanted to have a feel for the Instant film phenomenon, and I mounted an Instax Mini back (the Holga 120-IB) on the Holga 120 CFN I had brough with me to Rome a few years back. I bought the kit from a on-line store in Hong-Kong. It is composed of the back itself, a corrective lens to place at the front of the Holga’s lens, and an additional viewfinder. It’s very simple – there is no battery as the picture is processed and extracted when the photographer turns a crank hidden under the bottom of the back.

My first test was not devoid of issues: either the back was poorly assembled, or I did not insert the pack of film properly, but I could not extract the pictures from the camera with the crank as I was supposed to: after each shot, I had to go to a dark room, open the camera and extract the picture manually. I finally solved the problem, probably by brute force, and the back worked flawlessly with the subsequent packs of film. Then with the second pack of film, the shutter of the Holga decided to misbehave. I had to disassemble it and lube it. The third pack of film gave better results, but almost all of the pictures were over or under exposed: the exposure latitude of the Instax film is rather narrow, and nailing the right exposure is very difficult: don’t believe the specs sheet, the Holga only has one aperture (there is a sunny day/ cloudy day selector, but the aperture is F/13 in both cases) and the shutter is inconsistent and unreliable. Not the best recipe for success. Overall, it’s a frustrating experience as you feel you are wasting a good film in a poor camera.

But as always with an Holga, some of the pictures – while technically flawed – have an almost surrealistic quality.

Fuji bicycle - Instax Mini film - Holga camera with Instax back (AFAIK Fujifim is not in the bicycle business. It's a coincidence) — Fuji bicycle – Instax Mini film – Holga camera with Instax back (AFAIK Fujifim is not in the bicycle business. It’s a coincidence)

More about Fujifilm’s instant photography adventures:

Fujifim and Instant Photography (camera-wiki.org)