Dixons (UK) to stop 35mm camera sales

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by WinterMute, Aug 8, 2005.

  1. WinterMute Moderator emeritus


    Jan 19, 2003
    London, England
    Dixons are dropping 35mm cameras and film from all stores and will be concentrating on digital cameras and media.

    They will still sell 35mm film in airport shops however.

    Just saw Lord Snowden in the TV who stated that digital imaging is now "slightly better" than 35mm pictures.

    The Beeb link
  2. Applespider macrumors G4


    Jan 20, 2004
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    I do think this is one of those 'let's get some press coverage' releases since they did the same with VCRs last year and last time I was in a Dixons, they were still selling those.

    Then again, with all those kiosks springing up to let you print your digital films, you don't need a computer any longer so perhaps technophobes might buy digital after all.

    I have a pro-photographer friend who's just spent a grand or two on one of those gorgeous Nikon DSLRs but wasn't enamoured of the results compared to his old film SLR. I suspect though that he needs to experiment a little longer.

    Why digital seems better to many amateurs (not that I'm suggesting Lord Snowdon is an amateur :eek: ) is that they can correct their mistakes as they take the images and get fewer cut-off heads and closed eyes. And they're far more forgiving of shooting into different light conditions than film ever was.
  3. Lyle macrumors 68000


    Jun 11, 2003
    Madison, Alabama
    Altough I'm definitely still an amateur photographer, my picture-taking skills have improved since I switched to a digital camera. Since I'm no longer worried about "wasting" film on pictures that might not turn out quite right, I have the freedom to experiment with different ways to frame a shot, different lighting conditions, etc. and have learned more about what makes for a "good" picture as a result.
  4. Mavimao macrumors 6502a


    Feb 16, 2005
    Lyon, France
    This makes me kinda sad that film is starting to become more and more of a niche market much like Super-8 has since video took over.

    Thankfully it's examples like super-8 that give me hope that film will still exist no matter what.

    Digital technology in such fields like photography is wonderful in my opinion for obvious reasons such as price and previewing, but it shouldn't be considered a replacement. Painters don't just paint in water colors or just in oils or just charcoal. There are different tools for different jobs. Embrace both film and digital.

    But to go on a more personal rant, there are many advantages to film that people should understand. A 35mm camera made 50 years ago will still shoot as good - if not better - pictures than 35mm cameras today. Completely different story for digital cameras: 50 years is a huge leap in digital technology. Just 5 years is enough to make most digital cameras obsolete.

    Then there's software that goes obsolete along with the computers necessary to run the software that goes obsolete as well.

    Another personal rant: digital prints look crappy at those kiosks. I haven't had experience with more professional equipment, but skin tones are way off, greens and reds are saturated and on some cameras you'll end up having this "interlaced" look to it.

    Film are negatives made from light. Not a chip turning visual information into 1s and 0s.

    But please note that I am a proud owner of a digital Fujicam camera. Digital pictures are great to take to parties and events that require immediate results like new photography or for improving on composition and exposure etc. I just hate it when people call film 19 century inventions like it's a bad thing :mad:

    Vaccines are 18th century inventions and I don't hear anyone talking negatively about their importance to society....
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn


    Dec 27, 2002
    Location Location Location
    I own a Canon IXUS 40, and am not a pro photographer at all. I have no skills. Count it.....zero. However, just from thinking about how it all works, digital will probably never be as good as film, much like some people say that CDs will never sound as good as records. In some ways, it's true.

    Whatever. My point is that while I think film is better (again, it's not from personal photog experience), I think digital cameras are perfect for Point-and-Shooters like myself. Everybody just huddles around my screen and looks at the result after every photo. It's perfect when I'm with my friends and family.

    For professionals, it's probably better to stick with film.
  6. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    May 7, 2004
    Sod off
    Digital cameras will never totally supplant film.

    That said, the digital trades some quality for added flexibility and in many professional fields digital cameras are an important tool.

    Just from my own experience: Archeologists nowadays always use a digital camera to photgraph their work...alongside film cameras. The film cameras take a color shot for slides and a B & W shot for archival, while the digital shots are used for websites, presentations and sometimes illustrations in journal articles (along with film). They are alos good for experimenting with settings to get a good shot before using the film cameras

    I'm going the opposite way from Dixons; I cut my teeth with a digital camera and now I'm looking to get an old pro-level 35mm SLR to learn "real" photograpy.

    I think the digital camera expands the options of the photographer, rather than being a replacement for film. However, at the point-and-shoot level, digital cameras are destined to replace film altogether - in the not too distant future cheap disposable digital cameras may be in general use, and the price of good digital cameras continues to drop.
  7. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Feb 12, 2005
    IMO, film is still superior to digital, and probably always will be, especially when you get into larger format film cameras. Film is becoming a niche, but as such will never go away, like other superior, albeit idiosyncratic formats like vinyl and tube audio equipment.
  8. ejb190 macrumors 65816


    I do a good bit of plant, insect, and disease identification. I love being able to take a few shots and send them out to my colleagues across the state via email and having an answer in (sometimes) a matter of minutes. I love being able to shuffle around PowerPoint presentations and add photos I shot that day. I like being able to make multiple copies of images in a few minutes by hitting "print". I love being able to shoot off 80 or 90 shots and not worrying about if I have enough film (or taking the time to load it, for that matter).

    But after work I love the satisfaction I get knowing I created a work of art by using my own hands to dodge and burn a large B&W print of my brother (His birthday is today...). I love the anticipation of putting a piece of paper in the developer bath and hoping that this will be "the one".

    Film is slowly moving from the only way to take photos to a luxury, a media used for hobbiest and artists, not unlike furniture making or listening to old LPs. And right now we are somewhere in the middle. And don't worry. Sometime in the near future there will be film renascence just like there has been with analogue audio recording.
  9. Music_Producer macrumors 68000

    Sep 25, 2004
    What digital cameras are you guys using? If you're comparing a 5-6 megapixel digicam to a film camera.. well obviously the digicam won't stand a chance. A 22 megapixel digital cam.. now we're talking! I've seen pictures taken from those kinds of cameras that seriously blow film away..I'm saving my money to buy a 1 gigapixel cam in the next 10 years.. :D

    Anyway, digital cameras ..because of their benefits..have alteast encouraged a lot of people to take pictures. I know I used to get disappointed when I would go to museums and click with my film camera..and get black pictures!!! I gave up the camera (flash wasnt allowed in museums) Its only when i bought a digital camera and i could review the pics..and tinkered with the settings that I 'discovered' exposure modes. REcently, my wife and I went to the new york natural history museum..she had a film camera and me.. a simple 2 megapixel cam (4 yrs old) All her pics came out black and dark..with nothing visible..and mine.. ahhh.. they're good, real good ;)
  10. asif786 macrumors 65816


    Jun 17, 2004
    London, UK.
    gah, i hate dixons with a passion..

    mm, anyway, i don't think digicams will replace 35mm cameras totally for a while yet..older people still find them hard to use, and the battery issues..well, it's much better now..but could still do with some improving.

    i guess after losing my entire itunes library this week with no *recent* backups i'm just a little pissed off with the digital world right now..
  11. zami macrumors regular

    Dec 19, 2003
    South London
    Despite the fact my ancient Soviet Zenit 11 with a Jupiter-9 2/85 (doesn't that just roll off the tongue comrades) takes fantastic photos at any temperature from -50 to +50 centigrade without the need for batteries it is a right pain. Weighs a ton, needs manual diaphram closure and the exposure for quick shots is mainly guess work.

    Then we have Kodak who are not great sometimes at dealing with non white skin tones. Give me digital any day
  12. Chappers macrumors 68020


    Aug 12, 2003
    At home
    I was in Dixons at lunch time and they still have film cameras on the shelves.

    Technology moves on and some dies.

Share This Page