Reintroduction of film cameras

[ozphoto]

An F2AS sold here in Melbourne, Australia, on 10th March for AUD$275 -- "for parts".
My understanding of talking to the dealer at the time was the buyer planning to offer it as an "antique camera" at his country antique market table (!)

I took the original question as being what $US550 in 1977 equated to today, not the actual selling price of the same camera today.

 

[AgX]

At the moment I see an offer of refurbished models more logical than manufacturing new samples, even models. Unless a new model really would be different.

 

[blockend]

It's possible to see film use increase steadily, let's say 5% year on year, without the necessity for new camera manufacturing. There's too much surfeit and redundancy for anyone other than Leica (luxury goods) and Lomography (novelty/hipster) to make money from film cameras for the foreseeable future. The last generation of professional film cameras were sophisticated machines based on half a century of incremental development and feedback. The previous generation were mechanical marvels of peerless reliability. Both are available for a fraction of the cost of the most basic start up point and shoot.

There hasn't been any film R&D for 20 years, and most of the technology is 1940s to 1970s. Digital swallowed 99% of the professional photography market and film manufacture is still in contraction. So we're talking about a form of creative expression with little to no external application, a shrinking range of films and no research into the core product. The remaining film manufacturers can thrive by doing nothing except keeping the machines rolling.

 

[M-88]

If no new film camera introduced film photography would last as long as there is film. I don't worry about no camera only no film.

There will always be the film in one way or another - someone has to satisfy all the hipsters out there. However, if no new cameras are introduced, sooner or later all of their shutters will be exhausted along with spare parts.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Something like a Zeiss Nettar 515/16 from the 1930's or 1940's will probably endure for a hundred years or more with minor maintenance.

It has everything you need:

- 6x6cm medium format negative on common 120-format film
- set your shutter speed (B, 1sec to 1/300), plus a self-timer
- set aperture (f/4.5 to f/22)
- set focus (4 feet to infinity)
- manual winding of film
- compact folded package



If needed, bellows repair and repair / adjustment of the shutter is not difficult.

 

[Toyo]

By the way, not a reintroduction but Leica is still make film cameras. Nikon, although I don't think they still make them, still sell the F6 new.

Yes, I believe that Nikon F6 is now made to order.
T

 

[Chan Tran]

There will always be the film in one way or another - someone has to satisfy all the hipsters out there. However, if no new cameras are introduced, sooner or later all of their shutters will be exhausted along with spare parts.

I know many of the APUG members have a lot more cameras than I do but with my 42 perfectly working film cameras they would last long after I am gone. Besides DIY cameras are much easier than DIY film. If I have film and no camera I am sure I can make one. I don't even have the faintest idea how to make film.

 

[M-88]

but with my 42 perfectly working film cameras they would last long after I am gone

There's only one person I know who has more cameras than you. I hope you have sufficient storage space

I too have a handful of cameras, but all of them are different, only two are "favourite" and if they die and I can't fix/replace them, I'll just quit using film rather than use something clumsy or uncomfortable.

 

[Ste_S]

Film as an alternative will remain available into the future, most likely in diminishing volumes and choices from fewer manufacturers with Fujifilm likely to pull up stumps within 2 years leaving Ilford, Kodak and lesser known boutique brands. For many, those increasingly limited choices in film are often a springboard for deserting analogue to migrate to digital.

Yup. Lack of actual film will kill film photography before a lack of cameras does.
I guess we'll see in a couple of years after Fuji have run out of remaining stocks and we know what kind financial shape Kodak are in.

 

[guangong]

This topic has been the subject of several previous threads. The fact is the latter half of the 1960s through 1970s were a period of bountiful sales to many for whom a Nikon or Leica was a kind of costume jewelry, worn but very seldom used. These mint gems still come to market. Even if film use increases decades must pass before there is a need for new cameras. I agree wth earlier remark, we don’t need new cameras, but we need new repairman.
Except for some minor scuffing on base my cameras, all completely mechanical (only automatic cameras are Nikkormat, Contax T3, and Minox C and LX), are almost like new despite, for some, up to 50-60 yrs use. Bought many of them new. Expensive at the time but not expensive when amortized over time. Their computer will go when I go, but easily replaced with new user.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

You misunderstood Herr von Hoegh. US$550 in 1977 is roughly US$2346 today.

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=550.00&year1=197701&year2=201803

I think it's more than that, just figure the inflation per annum from 1977 to 2018.
My comparison was based upon the price of a small inexpensive automobile & a very rough mental estimate of inflation and the sale price of hardbound books, at least as realistic as the government's

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Three grand!?
Come off the glue.
$275 here in Australia.

Chan was asking what today's eqivalent in purchasing power would be.
Perhaps it's you should lay off the glue, your comprehension isn't too good.

 

[Chan Tran]

Chan was asking what today's eqivalent in purchasing power would be.
Perhaps it you should lay off the glue.

That's what I meant. $275 for a 40 year old camera wasn't what I had in mind. What I meant that if one could afford $550 in 1977 and if I need a camera today I can certainly pay the price of the F6.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yup. Lack of actual film will kill film photography before a lack of cameras does.
I guess we'll see in a couple of years after Fuji have run out of remaining stocks and we know what kind financial shape Kodak are in.

But then it is going to be dry plates awakening. Hold ya 6x9 and larger.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have been critical here about these start ups, even showed misleading activity. But I referred to them as they show that some entrepreneurs, and even them trying rip offs, see a market for newly manufactured cameras, and that is what the OP asked about, to my understanding.

Concerning Lomography, they introduced even unique cameras as the Spinner or their 35mm cine camera.

I'm not sure how some empty spinning has to with real cameras manufacturing.

And do you realize what Spinner is eight years old camera? And Lomokino is seven years old.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If nothing else, film will become the province of large format, which cameras can be (and are) made on a boutique basis, and do not require any degree of sophisticated automation (or even mechanization) in order to function. It would in some ways necessitate the return of very slow emulsions, which are in fact easier to home-brew on glass plates. And goodness knows large format cameras can last forever - I have one that is almost 140 years old, and when I get a new bellows on it, will be functional. I have lenses made in the 1860s that work just fine. I know some wet plate and daguerreotype folks who are shooting with cameras that predate the US Civil War. So if you want to keep doing analog photography, there are always ways to keep doing it - the only obstacle is your level of commitment and need for automation.

 

[Chan Tran]

If nothing else, film will become the province of large format, which cameras can be (and are) made on a boutique basis, and do not require any degree of sophisticated automation (or even mechanization) in order to function. It would in some ways necessitate the return of very slow emulsions, which are in fact easier to home-brew on glass plates. And goodness knows large format cameras can last forever - I have one that is almost 140 years old, and when I get a new bellows on it, will be functional. I have lenses made in the 1860s that work just fine. I know some wet plate and daguerreotype folks who are shooting with cameras that predate the US Civil War. So if you want to keep doing analog photography, there are always ways to keep doing it - the only obstacle is your level of commitment and need for automation.

In fact if someone to introduce a 35mm camera today, a successful one would have zero automation rather than with a lot of automation like a number of start ups. I can say all of them would fail.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

An F2AS sold here in Melbourne, Australia, on 10th March for AUD$275 -- "for parts".
My understanding of talking to the dealer at the time was the buyer planning to offer it as an "antique camera" at his country antique market table (!)

Sorry, but the quoted price of $500 (todays 3k ) was for a NEW camera, not used. That was an example of how expensive cameras are to make.

Current film cameras (Leica and Nikon F6) are expensive because they are being made on small batches but also because it is expensive to make them. We all currently enjoy cheap used cameras but don't realize they where bought much more expesive when new. Its not like today used camera price where the original price when new.

Best regards

Marcelo

 

[lxdude]

The OP was complaining about the price of new camera. I bought my F2AS new in 1977 for $550. How much is that worth in today money?

According to the US govt. Consumer Price Index, it is $2,306.80.

 

[Chan Tran]

Sorry, but the quoted price of $500 (todays 3k ) was for a NEW camera, not used. That was an example of how expensive cameras are to make.

Current film cameras (Leica and Nikon F6) are expensive because they are being made on small batches but also because it is expensive to make them. We all currently enjoy cheap used cameras but don't realize they where bought much more expesive when new. Its not like today used camera price where the original price when new.

Best regards

Marcelo

Like the Nikon FM10 which is considered to be very low end is selling for $569 with a cheap zoom lens. Nikon had them made in great quantity and yet the body alone should be at least $300.

 

[BradS]

Speaking of the FM-10....it makes me wonder what happened to Cosina? Wasn't Cosina making 35mm SLRs for many of the name brands until relatively recently?

 

[Huss]

Speaking of the FM-10....it makes me wonder what happened to Cosina? Wasn't Cosina making 35mm SLRs for many of the name brands until relatively recently?

Cosina makes the Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses that are currently available, in multiple mounts.

 

[BradS]

Cosina makes the Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses that are currently available, in multiple mounts.

yes....but do they produce any 35mm SLR or rangefinder cameras at all anymore?

 

[Arklatexian]

Have you seen the prices on new film cameras??? Leicas? No one is making a reasonably priced film camera. I'm limping along on a Sigma SA9 with a dim viewfinder.

Good, high quality cameras have always been expensive in the money of the time. Probably more so than now. When VW bugs first started coming into the U.S. in numbers, they (the Bug) sold for $2,000 or less. Today, a computer driven robot built similar vehicle can cost you 10 times that amount. Things are expensive out there folks and companies must make a profit or go broke, in spite of what many of you believe. Where I worked, we sold new M3 Leicas with 50mm, f:2 Summicron lenses, NEW, for just over $300.00 U.S. To make and sell that same camera and lens today with a 10x multiplier would be over $30,000. I have not seen a new Leica and lens priced anywhere near that price. Can I afford a new M type Leica? No. Neither could I afford one when they sold for %300.00. I do own one (M3) now. The answer is get all of your rich friends to buy new Leicas because THAT is where USED Leicas come from.......Regards!

 

[BradS]

^^...ah, 10 X $300 is only $3000.