-) Minilabs you won't find everywhere. I for instance would not know where to find one.
-) The rarity applies on colour halide paper commercially exposed under an enlarger, more so it then being operated by a skilled lab technician
Talk Of New Film Cameras
-
A
- Thread starter George Mann
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
-) Minilabs you won't find everywhere. I for instance would not know where to find one.
-) The rarity applies on colour halide paper commercially exposed under an enlarger, more so it then being operated by a skilled lab technician
Demand is out there for new equipment. I’m a college student, and I sold my first (digital) SLR to finance the purchase of a good film kit which has basically replaced my phone camera’s usage too. I know lots of other people who have done the same or only shot film in the first place, we’re talking at least one roll of film a week. Especially for gig photographers that shoot film for the “look,” and who need a reliable camera a new, moderately priced film body would not be out of the question. But of course, my experiences are probably not an accurate sample, confirmation bias and all that...
Yes, as I do not know such people.... Instead I still see used but good cameras being sold for next to nothing.
In this context we should not forget that in pre-digital times not every professional photographer used a brand-new camera and was working with the risk that his camera had a defect that he would not realize during taking.
Whether today a professional photographer still would bear such risk is to be discussed. A risk that remains, though with lesser probability, even with a brand-new camera.
In this context we should not forget that in pre-digital times not every professional photographer used a brand-new camera and was working with the risk that his camera had a defect that he would not realize during taking.
Whether today a professional photographer still would bear such risk is to be discussed. A risk that remains, though with lesser probability, even with a brand-new camera.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,981
- Format
- Plastic Cameras
Support organizations like Camera Rescue?
At least on sites like eBay, people are paying far too much for crappy cameras, and not nearly enough for properly refurbished ones, and as a result, there's little incentive for people like me to sell refurbished cameras unless we simply need to de-clutter.
At least on sites like eBay, people are paying far too much for crappy cameras, and not nearly enough for properly refurbished ones, and as a result, there's little incentive for people like me to sell refurbished cameras unless we simply need to de-clutter.
Yes! They provide an invaluable service.
I feel like there'd be a real market for a simple 120 camera that had a better quality lens. Something like a Holga with a quality seals to prevent light leaks and a lens more on par with a good P&S. Continue to have limited shutter speeds and aperture choices, no meter.
Maybe Lomography has something like this, but it'd probably cost 3x what it was worth.
Maybe Lomography has something like this, but it'd probably cost 3x what it was worth.
I still see such cameras you describe sold by camera stores out of rummage boxes for a few Euros. In case of a real market they would have gone at once, at higher prices.
What I want to say is, the market situation is very diverse.
What I see being sold meanwhile is something in the AE-1 class. And there still is a supply.
Folding cameras like the Zeiss Ikon Nettar have simple 3-element lenses. Wide open they swirl like crazy, stopped down to f11, the aperture box cameras, Holgas, fixed lens P&S cameras work at, the Nettar is very sharp. They are solid mechanical cameras with little to go wrong, and unlike other brands, the fabric bellows rarely leak. Mine were between £15 and £30, prices may have risen slightly in the years since.
The Novar of the Nettar is really very underrated I think.
Already at f5.4 and 8 it’s more than adequate.
Full open it’s still a charming and capable lens.
And not that much worse than a Tessar at the same maximum f-stop.
One could argue that it just has more character.
There is also some evidence that it is actually capable of more contrast then the Tessar.
Take a look at a few examples of open Novars photos scanned at high solution:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=novar 75mm 4.5&dimension_search_mode=min&height=1024&width=1024
And also this test:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29504544@N08/3690273823/in/album-72157620860652449/
And this:
https://photojottings.com/zeiss-ikon-ikonta-review/
There is no balsam to worry about either.
It's easier to clean if need be.
Some things would indicate that it's better at IR.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2011
- Messages
- 24
- Format
- Sub 35mm
I'd like to see something that takes the xpan format and doenst cost a kidney.
What are the brands/models you speak of? I don’t claim to know the market well but I was looking for a cheap medium format recently and felt my options were:
1 holgas, debonair, etc
2. Lomography offers like the $325 Belair
3. More than 60 year old folding cameras, TLR and pricier than I wanted to spend 645
Just seems like there’s a gap in the market but maybe I overestimate the need.
For instance Canon and Nikon manual focus. More so for autofocus models.
It very much depends on model. Some models never make it onto the shelves, but just go into rummage boxes, may they be junk or mint.
Lomography has some unique models, with features not offered in the long past. These, in spite of their prices, seem worth considering. Many others offer far less than than old cameras from fleamarkets or out of rummage boxes to be had for a fraction. With used ones of course there is the risk of them having faults, plain or hidden. Here it depends on ones expertise to decide.
These days I bought at a camera store a 6x6 with telescopic barrel, F2.9 75mm Cooke triplet lens, front-element focusing and 200, 100, 50, 25 , B , self-timer shutter with on-body release, a very basic Galilei finder.
Paid 15€ for it. What would you pay for such at Lomography for a new one?
As indicated, I hear sometimes, or rather rarely an analog photographers uttering that he would love if a camera with certain features would be (had been) produced, but I never heard anyone asking for new cameras in general to be made.
I've done my fair share! Everyone else, step up!
You could get a Horizon 202 pano camera. Under $150 new, and they have very good lenses. Of course it is a swinger (yeah baby yeah!) lens camera, but can create really nice panos.
We must admit that we are on the trailing edge of this particular mass production technology. The marvelous mechanical cameras and excellent photographic films that we all know and love have become functionally and commercially impractical and irrelevant in a digital society. The subtle aesthetic and philosophical characteristics of film images or camera operation are microscopic curiosities when viewed through the lens of a high-tech business model.
Eastman introduced flexible roll film in the 1890s and Kodak grew accordingly as the marketplace steadily expanded throughout the 20th Century. The huge capital investments to produce their films were justified by worldwide demand, but a hundred years later, electronic imaging came along and public interest in film photos rapidly shrank, along with Kodak, to almost nothing. The storyline for film camera design and manufacture is similar.
One day the last mass-produced roll of flexible photographic film will be sold. After that, there may be a few enterprising enthusiasts who will sell hand-made batches of 35mm or 120 rolls, along with their attendant chemicals and equipment. Glass plates, wet or dry, will always be practical to produce. Primitive box or view cameras with simple lenses can be built by any determined person. Chemical photography will never entirely disappear.
Meanwhile, we should relax and enjoy our fine cameras and films while we still can.
Eastman introduced flexible roll film in the 1890s and Kodak grew accordingly as the marketplace steadily expanded throughout the 20th Century. The huge capital investments to produce their films were justified by worldwide demand, but a hundred years later, electronic imaging came along and public interest in film photos rapidly shrank, along with Kodak, to almost nothing. The storyline for film camera design and manufacture is similar.
One day the last mass-produced roll of flexible photographic film will be sold. After that, there may be a few enterprising enthusiasts who will sell hand-made batches of 35mm or 120 rolls, along with their attendant chemicals and equipment. Glass plates, wet or dry, will always be practical to produce. Primitive box or view cameras with simple lenses can be built by any determined person. Chemical photography will never entirely disappear.
Meanwhile, we should relax and enjoy our fine cameras and films while we still can.
You overlook that after this change has happened and the photochemical manufacturers worldwide had production facilities and capacities too big by magnitudes a small scale industrial firm had been erected to estrablish a market-orientated production: Adoxwerk
Of course, Adox and Ilford have rescaled their business models to fit the current reality. Let's hope they can carry on for many decades.
What's surprising in hindsight, is how quickly the collapse came. In 2003 about 1 billion rolls of film were sold. A few years later 20 million were sold. Factories that occupied an entire block and employed thousands, operate from a small industrial unit with a few essential operatives. We are still getting our heads round the implication of that change.
A new camera may be viable at some point, in the meantime there are hundreds of thousands of working cameras for sale. Where people once aspired to a double stroke M3 as their everyday camera, they might have to settle for an OM1 or a FM2. A lack of hip optical jewellery won't kill film production, it'll be insufficient rolls sold to maintain existing plant.
A new camera may be viable at some point, in the meantime there are hundreds of thousands of working cameras for sale. Where people once aspired to a double stroke M3 as their everyday camera, they might have to settle for an OM1 or a FM2. A lack of hip optical jewellery won't kill film production, it'll be insufficient rolls sold to maintain existing plant.
Deleted member 88956
And the real key to film sustainability is what PR is needed to draw more of the younger crowd to it. There is obviously interest, but upscaling film production requires a lot more longer term sales demand, which I don't see there at all. For the time being we have film, but never price increases are not good indicator for what the future holds. Forget COVID argument, there is either corporate short term greed being played or sales are not what they need to be to remain in business. I don't follow sales numbers, but when a mainstream roll of film becomes $10+ a piece (which appears to be not far from today), we may see last fart of the industry as we know it.
Based on what data? How do you know $10 is not sustainable?
My local store is charging $20 a roll (cdn) for ektar/portra. It's gotten too rich for my blood. I've been shooting fuji lately which is far more affordable but even it has seen price increases. The lab tells me though that a lot of people are buying it and they're averaging about 180 rolls a month on the development side so people are obviously still willing to pay.
Deleted member 88956
To be clear, which I was not, meant B&W cheap film that sells for about $4 right now. Data? What data? Prices are already close to what a lot of people are willing to pay, and end up shifting away from Ilford/Kodak. It's a matter of time for cheap to reach currently most expensive rolls. There will be no new cheap then. And once people start shooting one roll a month it is not sustainable market, or is it? Data? What data? Manufacturers are going to test the limits, I don't buy into the philanthropic motives. That's my opinion on the matter.
Still cheap for a niche luxury item.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |