Lack of affordable new cameras = death knell for film photography?

[Helge]

I have a rising suspicion that the gung-ho mentality that accompanied the almost overnight sudden shift from film to digital, had as much to do with a hundred years of used cameras already then cannibalizing the market for new cameras to a big extent, as it was any of the usually attributed reasons.

The camera manufacturers had no interest in supporting Kodak, Fuji and Iford in keeping film afloat either, especially if a shift would mean a massive amount of new sales.
Remember that the early digital cameras where quite visibly inferior to film, even on a screen and even to the common naive casual viewer. The only saving graces being cheapness per image and rapidity.
But the video disc cameras of the mid 80s had exactly those same things going, and they didn’t set the world on fire.
New digital cameras are of course still inferior to film, but the old film infrastructure and knowledge base has eroded and atrophied.
At the same time as even decent scanners are either ridiculously expensive or non existent.

The pissing in the pants on a cold day strategy from camera manufacturers, has begun now to clearly show its nature as a staggered bubble economy.
Especially after smartphones near total dominance on the consumer market has rapidly accelerated the decline in digital camera sales.

 

[Pioneer]

I use a No 1 Pocket Kodak Series II quite frequently. 21 rolls of Kodak TMAX and other assorted 120 roll film so far this year.

I had to replace the red window which fell out. I also had to tape over the autographic slot on the back to prevent a light leak. The Kodak Anastigmat is actually a pretty good lens and the Kodak Ball Bearing shutter still works beautifully though it has slowed down a bit over the years.

These old cameras are surprisingly good and still do a wonderful job if you are patient.

 

[Helge]

I use a No 1 Pocket Kodak Series II quite frequently. 21 rolls of Kodak TMAX and other assorted 120 roll film so far this year.

I had to replace the red window which fell out. I also had to tape over the autographic slot on the back to prevent a light leak. The Kodak Anastigmat is actually a pretty good lens and the Kodak Ball Bearing shutter still works beautifully though it has slowed down a bit over the years.

These old cameras are surprisingly good and still do a wonderful job if you are patient.

What type of lens is it? Triplet?

 

[removed account4]

Going back to the original post... the demise of photography has nothing to do wit new cameras but lack of interest.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What's lacking are people willing to work for free or very cheaply in order to refurbish cameras for those who feel that they shouldn't need to pay more than $50 for a working FED. Lots of moneymaking potential for someone to make up for it in volume! (not).

So you will, in support of the greater good, give up 80% of your paycheck. Thank you for your service. Please deposit the balance of your salary in my bank account.

 

[Arthurwg]

Photography cheaper than yachting.

 

[Luckless]

Photography cheaper than yachting.

I have often through a boat might make getting cameras to interesting locations a little easier...

 

[reddesert]

There are ways that "open source" design or cottage industries could contribute to (film) camera technology. But I don't think trying to build a 35mm SLR or RF from the ground up is realistically one of them.

There are already small and cottage industry outfits making large format cameras, because those are suited to small-volume manufacturing without needing, for example, precision gearing in a film advance or shutter. A lot of the precision aspects that would be hard for a small maker to pull off are in the LF lens and shutter. There are also cottage industries for medium format cameras (like the Mercury) that are basically a 3D-printed box.

A more ambitious project would be to try to design a new, electronically controlled leaf shutter. Copal stopped making shutters, there are still plenty around, but they eventually need service. Small motors, batteries, and electronic controls are much smaller, cheaper, and better than they were even 20-30 years ago. Someone could probably design an electrically controlled leaf shutter that would be mechanically much simpler than a clockwork mechanism. Make it to match existing sizes and there would be at least some market for replacing old mechanical shutters. I'm not saying this would be easy, but more practical than recreating a fully mechanical camera.

Another project could be making, perhaps with 3D-printing, film backs. For example, there is some demand for exotica like 6x12 backs in medium format, and they're horribly expensive. Even the DaYi back that uses a red window retails for over $300. I think that would be something where many of the parts could be 3D-printed, supplemented by a few gears and a darkslide.

If people could design a leaf shutter and a film back, they'd be partway towards making a camera. But with practical milestones rather than trying to shoot the moon and build the whole thing from scratch.

 

[4season]

So you will, in support of the greater good, give up 80% of your paycheck. Thank you for your service. Please deposit the balance of your salary in my bank account.

Sure, I've got lots of nothing-much that I could share with you, maybe even a negative asset or two!

 

[removed account4]

I believe this is incorrect. People are taking more photos than ever in human history. They are just doing it with smart phones now and not traditional cameras. Clearly there is no future for traditional cameras with the general public. Camera makers are going to have to survive being in nothing more than a small niche. The public has long since moved on.

I am not talking about a lack of interest in photography I am talking about lack of interest in FILM,. and the demise of film. this thread from what I have read has nothing to do with photography not existing anymore. I agree, more people than ever are taking photos, can't argue with that. and most of them, like before, are worthy of a good "edit" and like before, no-one edits...

 

[abruzzi]

Photography cheaper than yachting.

I paid less for a 25ft sailboat than many people do for a 50 year old Leica.

 

[ts1000]

I think, though, that a well organized Open source collective could attract technical contributions/blue prints from older (perhaps no longer in business film camera manufactures).
This happened with the CPU architectures (and just very recently).
I mentioned this in the above post in this thread

There are ways that "open source" design or cottage industries could contribute to (film) camera technology. But I don't think trying to build a 35mm SLR or RF from the ground up is realistically one of them.....

 

[Helge]

I am not talking about a lack of interest in photography I am talking about lack of interest in FILM,. and the demise of film. this thread from what I have read has nothing to do with photography not existing anymore. I agree, more people than ever are taking photos, can't argue with that. and most of them, like before, are worthy of a good "edit" and like before, no-one edits...

If you believe that, then why are you even here?
The whole premise of the thread hinges around the fact/idea that film has a serious revival and is here to stay.

 

[Les Sarile]

What's lacking are people willing to work for free or very cheaply in order to refurbish cameras for those who feel that they shouldn't need to pay more than $50 for a working FED. Lots of moneymaking potential for someone to make up for it in volume! (not).

I used to repair various electronic devices for friends and family for next to nothing but they also wanted free parts and lifetime warranty regardless of new problem unrelated to the previous work done. After awhile I just just started telling them it's irreparable - no more parts. Probably just like the camera repair people in the video . . .

 

[Helge]

There are ways that "open source" design or cottage industries could contribute to (film) camera technology. But I don't think trying to build a 35mm SLR or RF from the ground up is realistically one of them.

There are already small and cottage industry outfits making large format cameras, because those are suited to small-volume manufacturing without needing, for example, precision gearing in a film advance or shutter. A lot of the precision aspects that would be hard for a small maker to pull off are in the LF lens and shutter. There are also cottage industries for medium format cameras (like the Mercury) that are basically a 3D-printed box.

A more ambitious project would be to try to design a new, electronically controlled leaf shutter. Copal stopped making shutters, there are still plenty around, but they eventually need service. Small motors, batteries, and electronic controls are much smaller, cheaper, and better than they were even 20-30 years ago. Someone could probably design an electrically controlled leaf shutter that would be mechanically much simpler than a clockwork mechanism. Make it to match existing sizes and there would be at least some market for replacing old mechanical shutters. I'm not saying this would be easy, but more practical than recreating a fully mechanical camera.

Another project could be making, perhaps with 3D-printing, film backs. For example, there is some demand for exotica like 6x12 backs in medium format, and they're horribly expensive. Even the DaYi back that uses a red window retails for over $300. I think that would be something where many of the parts could be 3D-printed, supplemented by a few gears and a darkslide.

If people could design a leaf shutter and a film back, they'd be partway towards making a camera. But with practical milestones rather than trying to shoot the moon and build the whole thing from scratch.

If you have the shutter and the back, all that is lacking is the lens.
The box itself should be trivial to anyone even halfway serious.
A shutter and back is no use on their own anyway.
You have to imbed the shutter in a lens anyway, and the back had to fit some system anyway.
Most systems already have their fill of backs though.

Designing a medium format back should in theory be much simpler than a 135 back. Though the 135 back simply needs some way to count sprockets. Something that could be achieved in a number of ways today.

My point is that with the correct mindset it should be, if not easy then doable to design a simple yet satisfying camera today, that very importantly, would still offer important incentive to buy, with a used market flooded with cheap gear.

One zinger would be using a smartphone as tiltable viewfinder, rangefinder, lightmeter and image preview mechanism.

Getting the lens elements and the whole thing assembled around the shutter would be daunting. But there are still a lot of companies out there doing that kind of work.

 

[markjwyatt]

A lovely camera. The Contax II would have been a very expensive camera in its day, and a new iteration wouldn't cost any less, especially if the original shutter design was incorporated. Shall we say £4k for a new Kiev IV?

£4k would be way too much. I thought of the Kiev 4a, because it was modified form the Contax II to be more producible. I think Zeiss Ikon was producing 1000s per year, while Kiev produced a couple million.

 

[4season]

There's certainly no shortage of affordable 35mm cameras once you stop ignoring last-generation SLRs which are still plentiful and inexpensive, and made with the same sorts of materials which stubbornly refuse to break down in landfills and the oceans: Plastics! A few have known weak spots, but most simply seem to be out of vogue right now.

 

[removed account4]

If you believe that, then why are you even here?
The whole premise of the thread hinges around the fact/idea that film has a serious revival and is here to stay.

there is a difference between a revival of sorts and a massive resurgence. the premise of this thread wasn't hinged on that
the premise of the thread was the video and the idea that the demise of film based photography is that there won't be new cameras for the masses.
as stated previously there will always be cameras used or new and the availability of new cameras has nothing to do with whether or not film stays in production. if no one buys it and there are a bajillion new cameras it will still go out of production.
why am I here ? do you mean posting in this thread or on this site in general ?
the thread because it is an interesting read even though it veered left. this site? I've been here for 17 years and enjoy using film and paper and making my own, I don't know where else I would go ?

 

[ts1000]

premise of the thread was the video the and the idea that the demise of film based photography is that there won't be new cameras for the masses

@jnantz I watched the video as well. And I had different cause->result analysis than you did.
My understanding of OP's video was:

Old film cameras will no longer be economically viable (due to lack of replacement parts). New film cameras at economic price points are not being made.
With that (which is not being disputed, I do not think),​

film manufactures will stop making film, even if there is revival of interest (and most who participate in this thread did not challenge this assertion either).

Therefore, OP was thinking of ways to re-create at least in parts film camera manufacturing to accommodate the demand (and to, potentially, enable part-remanufacturing to supply to the repair/service businesses).

So my takeaway so far, is that the 2 assertions that OP made are correct,
and the majority of the commenters (myself including) were coming up with ways, ideas of what exactly this rebult of film camera manufacturing would look like.

Perhaps, you actually disagree with either (or both) of the 2 assertions ?

a) there is a revival of interest in film

b) film cameras will soon not be economically viable to purchase and maintain due to lack of high-quality/lost cost replacement parts , or new bodies.

Is that the case?

 

[Helge]

there is a difference between a revival of sorts and a massive resurgence. the premise of this thread wasn't hinged on that
the premise of the thread was the video the and the idea that the demise of film based photography is that there won't be new cameras for the masses.
as stated previously there will always be cameras used or new and the availability of new cameras has nothing to do with whether or not film stays in production. if no one buys it and there are a bajillion new cameras it will still go out of production.
why am I here ? do you mean posting in this thread or on this site in general ?
the thread because it is an interesting read even though it veered left. this site? I've been here for 17 years and enjoy using film and paper and making my own, I don't know where else I would go ?

There is no binary or phase change like difference.
Everybody’s favorite flawed analogy; vinyl has been going from strength to strength for 20 years now, without any sign of tiring.
It has survived the financial crisis and at least two major new media platforms changing music distribution around it.
And I was talking why you are here in this thread, if course.

 

[Helge]

Sorry, my mistake. Yes, I agree with you, I think the film resurgence has peaked with this viral situation doing immense damage to its usage, radically accelerating its decline. Ilford is not posting any significant financial gains, Kodak is posting serious losses with their film division and even Fujifilm is playing down instead of touting their Instant film.

We live in very deflationary times yet the cost of film is going up more than most are going to pay, for any serious usage anyway. I am shooting very little if any film. Here we are in June and I have not shot any this year so far. I'd like too but in these very difficult economic times, I cannot justify the cost.

The situation has “just” mainly put many things on hold.
There is not the massive global disillusionment from the recession, where the whole economic premise had the rug yanked under it and was exposed as emperors new clothes.
Everybody knows this is a temporary thing, and not the result of a collective fuckup (unless you count not preparing for a pandemic that).
Economics is nothing else if not psychology of the single person and the masses interacting in complex ways.

You make the common mistake of equating your local and personal experiences, with national and global trends.
I have no sense that enthusiasm has lessened from my vantage point.
There is on the contrary a whole host of people who have finally had time to pursue ideas and wants that they have had for a long time but didn’t have time to get into.
And the established shooters too, have had extra time off and unique stuff to shoot.

If find it strange with the small but vocal amount of persistent nay sayers and doom mongers around here and some other places.
What are you trying to signal or achieve, by proclaiming the impending downturn of film as a medium?
At worst you will spread local FUD. At best..?

 

[4season]

Good presentation by Mirko Boddecker of Adox in early 2019 in which he illustrates the sheer scale of the film industry as it was at it's peak, versus today (starts at 7:40):

He does suggest that it's possible to have a healthy film industry for those companies able to scale production down to meet today's demand. And short of a miracle, I don't see us returning to the sorts of demand we saw in the 1990s, because most of that market was made up of countless casual shooters had no particular allegiance to film, it was simply a means to an end, and that end is served admirably by their mobile devices today.

As for film cameras, I feel as if 2% of the cameras out there are red-hot right now and those are indeed hard to get at decent prices. Hasselblad Xpan, Leica M6, Fuji GA645zi, Plaubel Makina 67, Contax T3, Minolta TC1, Leica Minilux, Yashica T4, Olympus Stylus, Nikon 28ti, Nikon 35ti, Olympus OM3ti, Nikon FM3A, Canon AE1. Meanwhile, you can hardly give away a Minolta Maxxum, Canon Rebel, any Zenit, Canon T50, a whole lot of German Zeiss cameras, most 1950s Agfa Optimas and countless others which attract very little attention. In a number of cases, the higher-grade models are languishing, while the consumer-grade ones are selling briskly (I don't think I need to mention specifics).

 

[Huss]

The situation has “just” mainly put many things on hold.
There is not the massive global disillusionment from the recession, where the whole economic premise had the rug yanked under it and was exposed as emperors new clothes.
Everybody knows this is a temporary thing, and not the result of a collective fuckup (unless you count not preparing for a pandemic that).
Economics is nothing else if not psychology of the single person and the masses interacting in complex ways.

You make the common mistake of equating your local and personal experiences, with national and global trends.
I have no sense that enthusiasm has lessened from my vantage point.
There is on the contrary a whole host of people who have finally had time to pursue ideas and wants that they have had for a long time but didn’t have time to get into.
And the established shooters too, have had extra time off and unique stuff to shoot.

If find it strange with the small but vocal amount of persistent nay sayers and doom mongers around here and some other places.
What are you trying to signal or achieve, by proclaiming the impending downturn of film as a medium?
At worst you will spread local FUD. At best..?

My local camera shop’s film section has been very busy since they reopened a week ago.

 

[blockend]

£4k would be way too much. I thought of the Kiev 4a, because it was modified form the Contax II to be more producible. I think Zeiss Ikon was producing 1000s per year, while Kiev produced a couple million.

It's essentially the same camera, with a few corners cut. The Kiev price reflected quality control, not so much design. In a non-planned economy you can't produce cameras where every third model is back for warranty within 12 months. It's said the later 4M was so bad, government intervened and took an entire production quota straight to scrap. The shutter mech alone would be expensive if you need it to last 10+ years. If Lomography sold the original Kiev it would be pricey, and a properly made modern version with Japanese quality materials wouldn't be less than £3k IMO.

I like the Kiev but most people preferred Leica knock-offs.

 

[blockend]

film cameras will soon not be economically viable to purchase and maintain due to lack of high-quality/lost cost replacement parts , or new bodies.

Any mass produced manual camera with wide availability, a Nikkormat or a K1000, could support a cottage industry of common parts replacement in the way Sover Wong services the F2. Bigger stuff could be from donner bodies, which would keep a 35mm SLR working almost indefinitely. Cheaper than a new production line, which would have set up costs, plus the expense of long term parts availability if the camera wasn't going to follow it's older brethren to obsolescence.

In the end we're looking at pricey gear - new film Leicas - or small businesses supporting vintage camera parts and maintenance in the way old cars are kept on the road. I could be wrong of course, and someone will bring out a properly made film camera with full back up, at a price people can afford. More likely it will cost as much as an MP, and people will just buy the Leica.