• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

The Death of Digital Photography as We Know It

RattyMouse said:
I bought a Canon 1V, their top of the line film camera in mint condition for all off $400. That is dirt cheap.
Click to expand...

Think I paid $1045 in 2004 for my 1V with booster. It had all of five rolls run through it at the time. It now has about twenty.
 
faberryman said:
And how much would you be willing to pay for these new cameras?
Click to expand...
If there was a Elon Musk approach, totally re think how it's done. Some sort of film transport system that would feed sheet film without scratching. Something so you don't have to lug a bunch of holders and use existing sheet film stocks. I bet you could build a laser rangefinder for 20 bucks, Price is determined by tooling costs. China has become the world leader in making injection molding tooling, cheap and fast. Hybrid lenses with injection molded elements. It should be made by Kodak, and Ilford. Sell the camera for 1000 bucks and get rich selling film.

I don't know but I go to a restaurant and all I see is silent people eating and looking at there stupid phone. Something that would reawaken the love of hands on tactile experience.
Mike
 
Skai King said:
Think I paid $1045 in 2004 for my 1V with booster. It had all of five rolls run through it at the time. It now has about twenty.
Click to expand...
That's more exposures than I had on a D200 I paid 1600 bucks for and sold for 250. Everytime I thought about using it the battery was dead. Boring. 8 exposures to a roll is right for me.
 
To the person who mentioned that there are no film labs in Hawaii...a very quick Google search produced "Hawaii Pacific Photo & Video" who allegedly offer film processing at a brick and mortar location in Honolulu. Google reviews certainly suggest they are high quality and are likely to still be open as of 2017. I did not follow the other links but there do seem to be labs in the state of Hawaii.

I like to compare the analogue still photography market with the 8mm and super 8 movie making market. Perhaps I am wrong, because the latter was never as big as still photography...but I suspect there are analogies.

With cine film, before video came along in the mid 80s, film was king for making home movies. I got into it just as the age of film was ending, in 1986. Production of most cameras had ceased, but hey....what did that matter...because there was a glut of now quite cheap cine cameras in excellent condition on the market. in the very early 2000's eBay provided a better way to sell these cameras and the associated gear, and YouTube provided a new way to show films around the world. There was a small but measurable upsurge in interest....Kodak actually put on a couple of promotional events in London for super 8 for the first time since the early 80s. But that swell in use dwindled because of two reasons....there was no new equipment at all, and the used equipment was now all 20-40 years old and far from reliable. All the former manufacturers of cine cameras had gone onto other things and none save Sankyo even had any spare parts. Then Kodak axed Kodachrome and the ability to shoot colour reversal limped on for a few years until they finally axed Ektachrome.

But guess what? The enthusiasts and film schools kept the flame alive and Kodak are about to introduce a new Super 8 camera and line of super 8 films. The camera is priced quite keenly for what it is. So it can be done....but I would hope that camera manufacturers do not wait until there is almost no usable second hand equipment around before restarting some sort of production. Kodak had nothing left and had to outsource. Do Nikon, Canon, Ricoh and the others actually have any capacity to produce the parts needed to make new film camera? I know Canon were approached by the super 8 crowd 15 years or so ago and they had not only junked every single jig, die and piece of machinery to produce super 8 cameras...but also the designs and blueprints. They had literally nothing left, no trace of an industry for which they had sold millions of pieces in the 60s and 70s.

It's a bit like asking Ford to suddenly restart production of a 1985 car....
 
Agulliver said:
To the person who mentioned that there are no film labs in Hawaii...a very quick Google search produced "Hawaii Pacific Photo & Video" who allegedly offer film processing at a brick and mortar location in Honolulu.
Click to expand...

You are correct, Hawaii Pacific Photo & Video is still standing. Maui has been without an option for roll film processing for a good eight years. For those of us not on Oahu, it's a FedEx shipment/charge away. Might as well send to the mainland, which has been my approach. More competition and fees/services.
 

I also print RA4 colour and depending where you buy your materials (printing Paper) it is cheaper than B&W
 
I have only 1 modern film and 1 digital (F6 and D300s) Both were retirement presents for myself. I have 2 quite old Minoltas, an SRT 101b and an XE1 plus a Nikon F601. All the 'old timers' work as well as the day they were made, but for how long. Possibly the only one that will be able to be repaired if it dies is the Minolta SRT101b....Damn electronics!

Over the years there must have been millions, nay billions of 42mm screw thread lenses but where are they now. There are very few good one appearing for sale in the usual places so have they been thrown out, damaged, or just forgotten in some dusty box under the roof of houses. I can buy a decent, fully working, cosmetically unchallenged screw body Pentax Spotmatic for not a lot of money but getting decent screw thread genuine Pentax lenses is more of a task. I would love to find lenses (not off E bay) from 20mm to 300mm (no zooms) but where are they?
 
Last edited:
First of all, digital is here to stay and analog is never going to come close to what is once was

I have followed, loosely, the release of newer *D* cameras as of late and it seems that they now contain so much other functionality that they can hardly be called cameras anymore, gps, wifi, bluetooth, motion-detection in-camera stabilization in 3 axis, even possibilities to fine-tune the actual focus in post (if you missed that eye), cameras that refuse to take a photo if the subject isn't smiling, all controllable from a flippable, touch-screen, some can even be controlled via your phone and possibly via the Internet (for some reason).

The reviews piss and moan about a camera that need to downscale from it's original 30 megapixel count, to be able to do 4K video in addition to everything else it's supposed to do.
- They are silly, heavy and expensive and nobody needs all the bells and whistles the reviewers tend to base their score on.

For my part, I get happier the closer to the basic photography I get; Moving various *D*, to the top-of-the-line Canon 1v, to metered rangefinders, to un-metered cameras, to a crude, all-metal Soviet 1d with a collapsible lens these days and I have found so much more joy doing that, than trying to get tethered shooting via WIFI working on my 5D mark III.

Phones have taken over the snaps-marked, just like *D* took over the analog snaps marked, that's where the money is these days. Everyone that use Facebook, Instagram and twitter need to sign a deal with the devil, allowing full access to personal details around the clock, that's how these corporations make money, they sell your info and tailor ads to your data and the photos deliver exact GPS-data and timings along with any other data people seem happy to supply.

I think the Instax-phenomenon is very interesting; It was made for people who like to take photos, who like to stand out, but don't have the patience to learn or wait for most things, at least not the chemical photo and it's process. It's instant gratification, instant results, just like the phone.
So it's basically cool, easy and different and it will stay that way for a while....until the millennials decide to move onto the next thing, since the Instax is "SO 2016".

There are many millenials (that is, people even younger than the 20-something lomo-hipsters) who pick up old analog cameras and shoot film and learn, which is great, let's keep them at it (the hipsters too) and film will surely survive another generation.

But a real revival, or new analog consumer/prosumer cameras? Nah....
 
Last edited:
Kino said:
I would think a new, pro-grade film camera system, the equal to the Nikon F or similar system, would be amazingly expensive and out of the reach of most of us.
Click to expand...

mynewcolour said:


Dead Link Removed
Click to expand...

I'm uncertain what model that is, but I'm assuming it's new and over $4000.

Yet, I have two M3's and two M6's - still in mint condition (one M6 bought new) - all four for under $4000.

I agree that there are so many existing high-quality film cameras available at relatively low prices that it doesn't make sense to introduce new ones - aside from niche products like Lomo cameras and Instax cameras.
 

couldn't agree more !
==
i keep thinking that the camera industry should ditch the idea that it is 2017 and think that it is like the 1930s/40s.
they should think affordable cheap and mass market. like folding cameras, like the argus f/af/c. the heck with expensive stuff, no one ( kids who will spend $$ ) wants or can afford them
and sure they are available at boutique prices, or someone can buy something used. lomo/holga/diana has been chipping away at this idea.
cheap+affordable+fun..
most people have a phone, which has taken the place of the p/s
 
Last edited:
The Impossible Project is already selling refurbished Polaroid cameras - SX70, 600 series etc. I've even seen them for sale in Bloomingdales! (a dept store in the US)
 
faberryman said:
And how much would you be willing to pay for these new cameras?
Click to expand...

Surely a lot less than one would have to fork out for this digital equivalent (in resolution capability) - Phase One XF System with 100MP IQ3 Back -
We're talking £/$ 100,000 for this, and remember; the price here is mostly based on the sensor, which would not be required on a film-based Crown Graphic ressurection. And it weighs 2.5 Kilos...
From what I can see, the Phase One won't even go below ASA 50 ...however, I'm now veering into unknown dig*tal territory, but you get my drift...
'In comparison', I would think that the cost would NOT be prohibitive for these analogue innovations. You could even add on the cost of a top quality drum scanner; giving hybrid options that the phase one lacks, and still be way cheaper.

JP
 
I have a few kids in their late teens and early 20's. People in this age group feel that their parents generation had better lives, more interesting experiences and more personal freedoms. They want to experience some of what we enjoyed so things like film, vinyl and even old cars and motorcycles (simple ones) are of great interest to young people. When possible they don't want NEW, they want the authentic articles. The used market is perfect as there is a lot of supply and the price points are right.

New film cameras would be of interest to 40+ generation - they can afford them.
 
Last edited:
Skiver101 said:
'In comparison', I would think that the cost would NOT be prohibitive for these analogue innovations. You could even add on the cost of a top quality drum scanner; giving hybrid options that the phase one lacks, and still be way cheaper.
Click to expand...
What price point would you deem "not prohibitive"?
 
The article referenced would be much more appropriately titled: "The death of the digital photography equipment market as we know it".
 
MattKing said:
The article referenced would be much more appropriately titled: "The death of the digital photography equipment market as we know it".
Click to expand...
Quite.

Digital photography is in rude health, it's just that Canikon are struggling by trying to keep hold of their existing market whilst it changes all around them.

Nikon are basically still using the same design of camera they introduced with the F5 and F90. Flappy mirrors and optical viewfinders aren't what the kids that have grown up with smartphones expect from an upgrade to a 'proper' camera. I've seen lots of youngsters using DSLRs, but I've never seen one use it the way we would, camera up to the eye. They hold the camera at arms length (the baby with smelly nappy hold) and use the rear screen to compose.

But for them to move forward means cannibalising their own sales of DSLRs and it seems a that Canon and Nikon are far happier letting other companies eat into their sales instead. And Nikon are holding on to that F-Mount in a 'prise it from our cold dead hands' kind of a way. They may get their wish if they don't let go of the past.

And the smartphones have ever more sophisticated and capable cameras built in.

Apple sell more iPhones in the opening weekend after a new model release than all the traditional camera makers sell in total for a year combined.

The market has moved quickly, Canikon not so much.

How we, as film enthusiasts, prefer our cameras to be is irrelevant. I like an OVF, but the kids? Nope.
 
Last edited:
If you think about it. People are getting their smart phones and getting a very good digital camera for FREE. Also, the camera has built in image editing software, and an internet connection to upload to social media. People upgrade their smart phones every 3 years where each time they upgrade their free cameras also for free. Also take a look at the comparison of image quality between DSLRs and Iphones. The latest Iphone 6 has better image quality than a Canon 60D. For most amateurs, (The majority of photographers) it's good enough. Tell me if I'm off here. But the smartphone also killed GPS units as know it.

https://www.dxomark.com/
 

Are you sure they were doing stills, and not video? (Or making use of other live view features?) I can't say I've ever seen someone hand holding to use live view with a DSLR. I'm hitting my 30s now, so my inclusion within the ranks of "youngsters" is now a matter of perspective, but I would be surprised to find that not using the view finder, optical or electronic, while handholding is all that popular in any demographic. The physics of stable camera holding are kind of the same... Unless blurry photos are an 'artistic thing' with young people there?


As for new kit, I can see it maybe being possible. There are new cameras being made. They're often "small" projects on Kickstarter, but based on the number I've seen that have gotten funding, I would have to say that I have faith in the market support for a limited release from one of the big players rather than these little questionable startups. Clearly people want new film cameras. I know that I personally would prefer to buy a new production film camera if it was priced reasonably rather than rolling the dice on old stock that is in questionable functionality at this point.

There of course are some questions on design issues, but from a production standpoint there may be the potential to reuse a lot of parts and tech out of current generation full frame digitals for new 35mm film cameras. I can envision a project based around redirecting bodies/parts from current production lines to be re-milled and tooled for film usage.


Mainecoonmaniac said:
Tell me if I'm off here. But the smartphone also killed GPS units as know it.
Click to expand...
Depends on the GPS unit. They put a rather heavy damper on sales of car dashboard mounts as third party add ons, but dedicated GPS units still have reasonable movement in retail. (Often bigger screens, built in shaders, more securely mounted, easier to read, etc.) Using your phone as a GPS unit is one of those "It works, but is not the greatest user experience", and that's why we still see in-dash GPS units on cars. (They also tie in for rear-camera usage easier than a smartphone does.)

Then there are other units. Handheld back country GPS units are still king over a phone GPS unit. For one, they're actual GPS units, rather than the hybrid systems that most phones use. Newer phones may have better units in them, but many (most? Nearly all?) of the earlier smartphone models I'm aware of would do poorly if you didn't have a cell signal (or were too far out in old infrastructure networks), or simply not be able to give a position at all.

Cellphones also usually aren't fond of salt water... or water in general. They're great for simple use while getting around a city in a pinch, but they're a far cry from a dedicated GPS unit if your use cases benefit from the advantages of the dedicated ones.
 
Last edited:
faberryman said:
How did you determine this? At what price point?
Click to expand...

How do I determine they want new cameras?
- New Camera projects have been funded on Kickstarter.
- I want new film cameras as an option.

As for finding what price point, that would be down to 'market research'. Same as any other new product release.
 
Does anybody have information about profits at major camera manufacturer (or camera division of manufacturers which do else as well, such as Canon and Sony)?

What we appear to see from the graph posted on page 3 is that smartphones invaded the market area of small pocketable digicams; the sales of DSLR and "mirrorless", the two higher quality brackets, seems to me to remain somehow stable.
Might it be possible that the profits are, or were already since a few years, concentrated in the higher brackets and the diminished sales of pocket digital cameras might maybe not weight much in the profit of manufacturers?
 
If one has an iPhone it is insanely easy to take digital images, zoom in on subjects, take panoramic digital images, and videos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register