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

Bikerider · Jun 4, 2020

roblopes said:
Minolta MC and MD glass is selectively nice. Not all the glass is as good as an entire kit like Nikkor and Canon FD. I've resisted the Pentax glass and that's probably a big mistake, but I really can't find a Pentax body that I can get attached too. There was one that I tried hunting down for a few weeks and gave up, the Pentax SV Black. The Olympus OM caught my eye, but I just can't seem to get the body and lenses in decent shape.

When the Pentax Spotmatics were the top of the pile for the enthusiast (and some Press Photographers), the advertising slogan for them was 'Just hold a Pentax'. Do you know they were so very right. I have yet to find a more comfortable camera to hold. It may have been because of the lighter weight of the prime lenses gave the a perfect balance, because with a screw fit zoom they start to become a little unwieldy. Their primes were outstanding up to 135mm. After that you really did need a support

Prest_400 · Jun 4, 2020

4season said:
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).

Quite much agree.
I actually placed an order in Fotoimpex yesterday and realised their mail includes a "queue number" of orders, which at 14PM meant that I was the 550th order of the day. Of course they are one of the largest film stores in EU but seems a good number.
Unfortunately Covid has put a hold to some of ADOX's projects as I'd wished they had Polywarmtone by now.

Exactly so it is with cameras. Medium format (modern) is concentrated around more pro cameras but in 35mm there are plenty a choices when skipping the most known systems. Some of the cameras you list hae always been high range and have stayed there. Prosumer 1980-90s AF SLRs are particularly overlooked, I think I should get more nikon F90's as they get almost none of the hype of F4 and F100's, and such analogy applies for many other models of camera.
And in my honest opinion, as good as leica is, any decent other 35mm will be able to give excellent enough results.

Team ADOX · Jun 4, 2020

Horatio said:
Anyone agree?

No, not at all.
For about 20 years now we are hearing " X will be the death knell for film" or " Y will be the last nail in film's coffin" and so on......nothing of that has happened.
But instead, film is not only still alive, but has a significant resurgence in the last years.
This video is unfortunately another form of 'click-bait' by a person with very little knowledge about our industry.
Lots of misinformation in that video.
Just to list some of it:
1. There is no general shortage of used film cameras on the market. From 2000 - 2007 alone more than 80 million (!!) film cameras have been sold. Most of these relatively young film cameras are out there, available/usable and working. Here you can find the numbers: http://cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr400.pdf
2. You can find excellent film cameras on the used market for extremely low prices. Just have a look at cameras like the Nikon F100, F80, F75, F90X, F801s, F5; the Canon EOS 1N, EOS 1V, EOS 3, EOS 30 / 33 (V), EOS 5, EOS 50E, EOS 300X, EOS 300V, Minolta Dynax 600, 700, 800, Dynax 5, 7 and 9 and the latest Pentaxes.
And that are just some examples. There are lots more.
3. New, innovative camera repair companies / technicians like e.g. Camerarescue or PPPrepairs are adressing topics like electronic repairs and new spare parts production. That trend will continue and resulting in more cameras being repairable. Camerarescue just recently presented their first self-made electronic spare part.
4. There is no general shutter shortage. Shutters are produced in millions each year for the current ILCs. And these shutters can be used without problems for film cameras, too (as they have been used for it in the past).
5. If there is enough new demand, camera manufacturers will satisfy the demand. Evidence: Which has been for years the best selling camera type? No, it is not a digital camera type. It is a film camera type: Instax instant cameras. More than 10 million in 2019 alone. That is 3x more than all DSLM manufacturers has sold together in 2019.
Polaroid has introduced new cameras because of increasing demand, too.
Same for Leica: Increasing demand for their film rangefinders has led to the introduction of the Leica M-A film rangefinder camera.

As a film, photo paper and photo chemistry manufacturer we are facing lots of hurdles and challenges. But a "lack of film cameras" is something we don't have to worry about. It isn't a problem in the short and mid-term (mid-term = this decade). And in the long term we will see new film camera production and more repair options.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

Donald Qualls · Jun 4, 2020

Just to add to this: the current production Instax cameras cost under $200, as do the new Polaroid instant cameras (and never mind that the "boutique" cameras from Mint for Instax film are $700 or so).

Kino · Jun 4, 2020

While we are at it, I highly suggest someone tool back up the Graflex production line and produced 5x7 reflex graphic with AF and color matrix metering, but in carbon fiber and make it for $500...

Arthurwg · Jun 4, 2020

One problem I see is that "new" parts for old cameras manufactured by cottage industries will probably not work perfectly out of the box but will require precise fitting before installation. They will not be made with the same quality, precision and tolerances as the originals. I've seen this with small batch manufacture of engine parts for antique cars, which usually require skilled machining before fitting.

Team ADOX · Jun 4, 2020

Arthurwg said:
One problem I see is that "new" parts for old cameras manufactured by cottage industries will probably not work perfectly out of the box but will require precise fitting before installation.

No problem, because the spare parts are made by the repair companies itself. That is currently happening at Camerarescue: They have started making spare parts by themself, both mechanic and electronic parts. As they are the experts which are repairing the cameras, they make parts perfectly fitting the cameras in need for repair.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

Team ADOX · Jun 4, 2020

Ayrton Senna said:
Data that existed pre-COVID shows no sign of any upsurge in film sales.

That is completely wrong.
- Kodak has publicly stated their film sales for photo film have about doubled in the last five years (in movie film is has been even more)
- Ilford has for years increasing film demand (and reported that in their public financial data)
- we know from our contacts to Fujifilm that they have increasing demand for about 2-3 years for photo film
- we know from our contacts to Foma that they have also increasing demand for quite some time now
- we see increasing demand for our ADOX films for years as well.
You really should have a look here in the subforum 'Industry News', where this has been discussed, including the links to the publications, interviews with CEOs and so on.

Our colleagues from Fotoimpex see increasing demand for film for years now. They often have difficulties to get enough film because demand is so high, especially with very popular CN films like Fujifilm C200 or Kodak ColorPlus.

The film revival is real.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

removed account4 · Jun 4, 2020

ts1000 said:
@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?

I watched the video too and read the thread, and find the whole idea that nothing will be available or affordable to be crazy-talk. currently there are probably 2 working film cameras ( lf mf mini, sub mini, ulf ) for every man woman and child on this planet. and there are people who fix them, and machine new parts .. the only thing that will kill film based photography is if people lose interest and the manufactures stop making product. and even when that happens, photography will go back to the way not was before the "Kodak" was invented. as long as there is silver nitrate, and other light sensitive materials there will be chemical photography, even if it isn't practiced on a mass-scale like everyone wishes it would. and there will probably be even MORE people practicing it because manufacture of alternative negatives is extremely easy, cost effective and can be done with any sort of image capture device ( or without a device at all )...

removed account4 · Jun 4, 2020

Helge said:
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.

there has been a big hammer pounding "coffin nails" on chemical photography for 20 years. my uncle who was a futurist of sorts told me in 1988 that film was on its way out. I just shrug my shoulders, keep exposing light sensitive stuff, and if it does go. it is completely out of my hands. I'm probably going to be buying some more silver nitrate soon so I will have some on hand. for the next nail.

with regards to everyone's favorite analogy of vinyl records .. IDK I can't afford to pay $25-30 for an LP. but I am currently spinning "pretenders II" purchased in 1982, pressed in Portugal and sold at my former record shop for $3.99 "Nice price".

Donald Qualls · Jun 4, 2020

I can buy flat glass, either in small panes or larger ones I can cut to size: check
I can buy heavy paper in various sizes: check
I can buy metallic silver: check
I can buy reagents to convert the silver to halide: check
I can buy gelatin in which to suspend the halide: check
I can buy yellow food coloring to orthochromatize: check
I can buy common ingredients to make developer: check
I can buy pool chemicals to make fixer: check

Analog photography isn't going anywhere as long as there's light and the above checklist.

Nodda Duma · Jun 4, 2020

blockend said:
Ok, I'll play along. I arranged a variety of every day objects on a table to a depth of 3ft. I then tested each lens at each aperture on a sturdy tripod at minimum focus distance, with the self timer, first at minimum focal distance, then at 7ft from the centre point. Which is tedious beyond belief, but I needed to make comparisons before I replaced focal lengths I already owned with more expensive modern optics.

I could have kicked the tripod, there could have been mirror shake - except two of the three cameras don't have mirrors, my focusing could have been off but I used 100% enlargement and focus peaking. Then I'd have had to have done one or more of the above for each shot. If I could be bothered I could dig out the notebook in which I laboriously recorded my findings for each lens. Off the top of my head a Yashica 50mm f2 performed far better than it had any right to, and is one of my favourite lenses on film and digital video. The FDn 50mm 1.4 was ok but didn't meet the hype and exhibited focus shift at f2.8 and f4. A Sigma 28mm 1.8 did quite well, an AIS 135mm Nikkor was among the better teles. Some zooms were better than others. Some lenses were very pleasing, some "glowed", some like a Lanthanum coated Industar were sharp while older versions were not. And so on and so on.

There are no depths to the debunking you could apply to what I'm saying, but at some point I've probably mentioned all those lenses and many more on this forum, where my observations can be found.

The issue with that type of test is that it doesn’t take into account lens-to-lens variations during a production run...which can be quite significant depending on quality control. This is a very common mistake in testing outside the optics community because tolerances and the effect on performance are simply outside the realm of experience amongst the majority of photographers. If it were, the hottest topic of discussion would be a company’s quality control process, and brands would advertise their ISO 9001 / AS9100 credentials.

Modern QC techniques trends toward greater consistency in quality, but by no means guarantee higher performance in a specific digital lens over a specific example of a classic lens at the top of its production run MTF bell curve.

Horatio · Jun 4, 2020

Team ADOX said:
That is completely wrong.
- Kodak has publicly stated their film sales for photo film have about doubled in the last five years (in movie film is has been even more)
- Ilford has for years increasing film demand (and reported that in their public financial data)
- we know from our contacts to Fujifilm that they have increasing demand for about 2-3 years for photo film
- we know from our contacts to Foma that they have also increasing demand for quite some time now
- we see increasing demand for our ADOX films for years as well.
You really should have a look here in the subforum 'Industry News', where this has been discussed, including the links to the publications, interviews with CEOs and so on.

Our colleagues from Fotoimpex see increasing demand for film for years now. They often have difficulties to get enough film because demand is so high, especially with very popular CN films like Fujifilm C200 or Kodak ColorPlus.

The film revival is real.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

Thanks for weighing in. It’s good to hear from someone on the inside.

radiant · Jun 4, 2020

Team ADOX said:
1. There is no general shortage of used film cameras on the market. From 2000 - 2007 alone more than 80 million (!!) film cameras have been sold. Most of these relatively young film cameras are out there, available/usable and working. Here you can find the numbers: http://cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr400.pdf
2. You can find excellent film cameras on the used market for extremely low prices. Just have a look at cameras like the Nikon F100, F80, F75, F90X, F801s, F5; the Canon EOS 1N, EOS 1V, EOS 3, EOS 30 / 33 (V), EOS 5, EOS 50E, EOS 300X, EOS 300V, Minolta Dynax 600, 700, 800, Dynax 5, 7 and 9 and the latest Pentaxes.
And that are just some examples. There are lots more.

80 million, guys. 80. We are not going to run out of cameras any time soon. And I agree that for example Dynax series are superior cameras in technical means. A 30 euros plastic SLR can beat easily many old cameras easily. I have few Dynaxes, btw And I wonder how many millions of those are floating around the world.

Let's keep our eyes wide open. Film is not going to die because of lack of cameras, that is for sure.

Pioneer · Jun 4, 2020

While I do believe that there are a few on this site who appear to spend their time talking about the end of film, and at times seem to almost gleefully anticipate it, I think the majority of us are to busy trying to create photographs to worry too much about it.

Helge · Jun 4, 2020

Ayrton Senna said:
Where is the data that the trend is positive? Look at the financials. I'm not, as you suggest, looking at my own enviornemnt. I'm looking at the financial information that is publicly available. Data that existed pre-COVID shows no sign of any upsurge in film sales. It's not there. If it is, please point it out. I'm happy to be proven wrong. What I see is declining revenue and reported losses.

That kind of data is very hard to come by in a completely hard and fast way.

Ask Henning Serger though, the businesses unofficial voice organ.
Go to any big camera store in a major town.
I’ve done that in DC, Chicago, NYC, Rome, Bologna, Berlin and Copenhagen during the last year or two. All places report a quite briskly surging interest.
Look at the amount of film photography podcasts. There is even two big dedicated magazines in this day and age.
Look at the (re)launch of new and old stocks from old and new players.
Look on YouTube.

I am aware, that there is a danger of confirmation bias and echo chamber effect, but I am usually quite good at filtering those things out.

The trouble with Kodak is that they are publicly traded, and have other lines of business,
and have in general had trouble finding their feet.
Their film business appears to be one of the overall profitable lines though..

Nodda Duma · Jun 4, 2020

Ayrton Senna said:
Kodak has publicly stated that their division that sells film has seen decreasing revenues and substantial losses (no profits) of almost 10 million dollars in 2019. I have looked at the past 5 years of data and if one charts it, the revenue line is down and to the right. It is not a positive trend.

So if film sales are up as you say, then they are so insubstantial as to not even be visible in a financial report. Further, hitting "control F" and searching each document for the world film shows ZERO hits for any reference to positive film sales in the 2019 report. Nothing.

These are not opinions, they are facts. Facts that have been audited by a 3rd party accounting firm and not from the mouth of some anonymous marketing person talking up his company.

want hard facts? My sales of dry plates have been increasing by 40% year over year and, barring the slump due to covid, is on track to do the same this year. It is such a niche of a niche of a niche market that, according to you, should have failed to sell a single plate! Instead, I have coated tens of thousands of dry plates.

The trend is real and obvious all up and down the supply chain.

Ko.Fe. · Jun 4, 2020

4season said:
....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.

Film was still in use professionally in 90ies. And it wasn't purchased in form of single roll for this purpose, comparing to casuals.

Yesterday, I checked film prices from my regular source since 2013. Most of the film prices cuts me from regular use of film.
I have collection of working film cameras, which will works for decades from now, but with current film prices I can't afford to use them as I used them just couple of years ago.

What is the point of spending of hundreds of dollars per year just on film and not for so many rolls, if new 35mm digital cameras cost bellow of thousand dollars? It has nothing to do with spray and gun myth. Magnum contact sheets book shows how dumb this myth is. Anyone who is into photography like street, documentary and reportage need to take enough exposures. Martin Parr has very good words about it. He is not using film anymore.

Helge · Jun 4, 2020

Ayrton Senna said:
This is incorrect. The film business lost money in the recently closed fiscal year. 13 million was lost by the film division in 2019 vs 22 million lost in 2018. Revenue was down 1 million dollars in 2019 compared to 2018 indicating that costs were cut to reduce losses, not increased sales.

Kodak has 6 divisions with printing being the only one with substantial profits. The rest lost money or in one case show a tiny 2 million dollar profit. Overall the company made an 11 million dollar profit but total revenues were down 78 million dollars. At no point in the "Highlight" slide is a dramatic increase in film sales mentioned. Instead, these businesses were called out:

Growth in profitable revenue

:•Volume for KODAK SONORA Process-Free Plates grew by 22 percent year-over-year
•Annuities revenue for KODAK PROSPER grew by 5 percent year-over-year

You can be very certain that if film were selling as much as many here say, it would be called out as the above two were.

These are the facts. Not imaginary ill will generated by anyone but the facts as stated from Kodak, which have been audited by a 3rd party.

https://investor.kodak.com/static-files/8eb75afc-7628-4607-8680-52784fe3790b

Ask yourself, if film sales are so positive, then why does it not show up in these figures?

Ask yourself why, and just as importantly how, would a publicly traded company continue a line of business that gave real negative earnings year after year, even after an encounter with chapter 11 eight years ago‽
Let alone launch new old film stocks like P3200 and Ektachrome (and now Fuji too with Acros).
Corporate pride doesn’t take you that far as a traded company.

Why would Hollywood recently sign a new deal with a company for delivery of film for the foreseeable future, if they where standing with one foot in the grave?

Even if the public perception is otherwise, it is quite normal and doable to push things around to make annual reports say something closer to what you think the investors want to hear.

I doubt there is many film diehard fans among Kodak’s investors.

Helge · Jun 4, 2020

Ko.Fe. said:
Film was still in use professionally in 90ies. And it wasn't purchased in form of single roll for this purpose, comparing to casuals.

Yesterday, I checked film prices from my regular source since 2013. Most of the film prices cuts me from regular use of film.
I have collection of working film cameras, which will works for decades from now, but with current film prices I can't afford to use them as I used them just couple of years ago.

What is the point of spending of hundreds of dollars per year just on film and not for so many rolls, if new 35mm digital cameras cost bellow of thousand dollars? It has nothing to do with spray and gun myth. Magnum contact sheets book shows how dumb this myth is. Anyone who is into photography like street, documentary and reportage need to take enough exposures. Martin Parr has very good words about it. He is not using film anymore.

Martin Parr did by far his best work on film.
William Klein is still using film at 92.
And he is still shooting profusely.

Film is expensive if you shoot a lot. But it’s doable.
There is a healthy tension there between wanting to shoot all you can and not being able to.
Printing, traveling and new gear with any kind of photography is expensive.

There are other avenues than docu and street of course, where film use is a whole lot less.

blockend · Jun 4, 2020

Ko.Fe. said:
Martin Parr has very good words about it. He is not using film anymore.

Martin Parr's work suits digital pretty well. Looking at a Parr retrospective a couple of years ago, I preferred his film work, mainly because he was younger, absolutely on it, and had something to prove. The same shots on digital wouldn't look that different. What was different was a British documentary/street photographer shooting medium format colour negatives, with flash, in a genre dominated by black and white.

When he made Last Resort Parr was still teaching. He said he couldn't afford to have contact prints made of all his work, so he selected his final prints by looking at the negatives. Digital photographers don't have that problem, their problem is working in a medium whose technical output is virtually indistinguishable, without serious intervention after the fact. Which may be why they are increasingly choosing, or returning to film.

Tom Kershaw · Jun 4, 2020

blockend said:
Which may be why they are increasingly choosing, or returning to film.

I see Thomas Heaton of Youtube fame has bought himself a Hasselblad.

Ko.Fe. · Jun 5, 2020

Helge said:
Martin Parr did by far his best work on film.
William Klein is still using film at 92.
And he is still shooting profusely.

Film is expensive if you shoot a lot. But it’s doable.
There is a healthy tension there between wanting to shoot all you can and not being able to.
Printing, traveling and new gear with any kind of photography is expensive.

There are other avenues than docu and street of course, where film use is a whole lot less.

I like Parr's words and video, interviews he took.
Daido Moriyama switched to digital and I see no problem with it. Fred Herzog switched to digital and so George Zimbel did. And Bruce Gilden.

Helge · Jun 5, 2020

Ko.Fe. said:
I like Parr's words and video, interviews he took.
Daido Moriyama switched to digital and I see no problem with it. Fred Herzog switched to digital and so George Zimbel did. And Bruce Gilden.

https://www.google.dk/amp/s/amp.the...es-killed-sexiness-street-most-stunning-shots

Prest_400 · Jun 5, 2020

Team ADOX said:
As a film, photo paper and photo chemistry manufacturer we are facing lots of hurdles and challenges. But a "lack of film cameras" is something we don't have to worry about. It isn't a problem in the short and mid-term (mid-term = this decade). And in the long term we will see new film camera production and more repair options.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

Agree with the insights you share, many many excellent film camera models which do not get the "hype" go for excellent prices and can take as good a picture as a very fine expensive machine.
I hope the hurdles that ADOX is facing get solved fast. Wish I could have had some Adox Polywarmtone in my last week's Fotoimpex order!

Helge said:
Film is expensive if you shoot a lot. But it’s doable.
There is a healthy tension there between wanting to shoot all you can and not being able to.
Printing, traveling and new gear with any kind of photography is expensive.

There are other avenues than docu and street of course, where film use is a whole lot less.

People are getting into film, both returning and newcomers. I handed a thrift store P&S and a roll of FP4 to a friend who left film but wants to do some of it again, we had a lengthly discussion over dinner about the philosophy of shooting film and printing instead of using the phone/digital camera. A lot of his reasoning was about the physical and not depending on screens and data. He is in the STEM field and tired of screend and pursuing technological perfection.

As of the prices, it's not cheap but then depends on the approach and usage. At the end of the dayit's a hobby that compliments well others and look for something else that keeps time frozen in a frame/paper that can last a lifetime or more.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency