mani
Well-known
You completely expose your agenda by using that ridiculously inappropriate word: "salvage - the rescue of something wrecked or disabled".
When I'm using a new-in-box Mamiya 6 or a mint Leica (or even a nice old Olympus OM1), then 'salvage' is hardly what it feels like.
A digital camera from six or seven years ago, on the other hand...
Spanik
Well-known
Then there still are capable large format cameras around, books about the chemistry en raw materials to keep oneself into photography.
Skiff
Well-known
For producing an F7 you can take lots of the F6 (film transport, feature settings, ergonomics, mirror mechanics of the F6 is perfect, and we don't need more than 8fps with film) and the D5 (AF system, E lens compatibility, maybe metering system, although the F6 metering system is outstanding).
All of that is already developed, so no further R&D costs needed.
Than you add a direct read-out for the Exif data (instead of MV-1 or meta 35) - finished. There you have your most modern, top of the line F7.
Nikon and Canon are at least internally discussing the same strategy: At Photokina 2014 they said they are thinking about enthusiast film cameras in the 1,000 - 2,000€ range.
So these ideas are not from anyone in any forum: They originated from the manufacturers themselves.
Skiff
Well-known
No, read my explanations again. That are two different things.
Just look at the facts, the real numbers:
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html
In only 6 years the digital camera market has lost 75% (!!) of its sales volume. That is a collapse. Period.
Skiff
Well-known
Please consider the facts:
1. Fuji has not stopped Pro 160NS completely, but only in 4x5" sheet film. That is very sad, of course, because it is not only an excellent film, but also by far the cheapest CN sheet film. Kodak CN film is extremely expensive now, much much more expensise than all Fuji sheet films.
Fortunately there are also the Fuji reversal sheet films, which are also much cheaper than the Kodak colour negative sheet films.
But the current beginning film revival is currently driven by instant film and 135 and 120 format films. And so far not (yet) by large format.
2. Kodak is on a much weaker basis concerning film than Fujifilm. The Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke explained in several interviews this year that in 2014 Kodak was extremely close before stopping film production completety. That has never been a topic at Fujifilm.
3. In the last years Kodak has much more brutally discontinued products and complete product lines than Fujifilm: BW paper, all their labs, reversal film, photo chemistry were either completety stopped or sold (Kodak branded photo chemistry is now produced and distributed by Tetenal in Germany).
Fuji is running some mass volumes labs in some countries (very good quality at extremely low prices) and is supplying us with own made photo chemistry and the best reversal films ever made.
4. The Fuji film portfolio is still bigger than the Kodak film portfolio.
5. With Instax Fuji is offering the currently most successful photo product. And young photographers get interested in film by that.
6. Eastman Kodak has made 200 million $ with film products last year. Fujifilm has made more than 2.4 billion $ (!) with their growing (+4%) silver-halide photo business (films, Instax cameras, silver-halide photo paper, labs, mini-labs and photofinishing).
Fujifilm has therefore a much stronger basis in traditional silver-halide products than Kodak. They will not give up a profitable and again growing business.
jarski
Veteran
I would rather call it's normalizing as mobile phones have taken part of that market. Digital cameras aren't going anywhere, as phones are compromise of several other factors as well besides only taking photos. Sure phones are good enough for majority of users, but not for everyone.
Skiff
Well-known
The digital camera manufacturers cannot look at it as a "normalizing" because they are loosing their product with by far the biggest sales volume: compact cameras.
Both in the film times and in the first decade of this century compact cameras were responsible for 80-90% of all camera sales!
Interchangeable lens cameras like SLRs, rangefinders, DSLRs and mirrorless have always been a niche in sales volume compared to compact, fixed lens cameras.
So the digital camera manufacturers are currently loosing their "sales volume backbone".
And DSLRs and mirrorless are in a significant decline, too (DSLRs more than mirrorless). Since 2012.
There are good reasons why most OEM manufacturers of compact cams already quit the market. And good reasons why with Samsung the first of the big brand manufacturers has also pulled the plug, too. They will probably not be the last one.
jarski
Veteran
Perhaps. It happened in film days too that makers decided abandon camera business because they decided it wasn't good enough for them.
Curiously though, Fuji for instance started whole new system when current trends were already well in horizon. Am sure they did a lot of homework before making such a commitment.
Skiff
Well-known
No, not perhaps. This is happening for years! This year compact camera production declined by another - 42,5% !! Just look at the numbers! I've posted the link several times in this thread. All the data is publicly available. Directly from the manufacturers themselves, because the CIPA is the organisation of the manufacturers.
Lots of OEM manufacturers in Asia have already stopped production of these cameras.
No, in film times such decisions were not made because of total market developments, but because some camera manufactureres were just to weak in the competion with the big(ger) ones.
.
No, Fuji made the decision in a time before 2010, when all digital camera types were still on a strong increase.
jarski
Veteran
no, I meant the smartphone phenomenon that was already well under way 4-5 years ago when X-system came to market. Fuji doing market research surely could predict what impact these devices would have on different camera categories.
companies adapt to new market conditions, downsize staff and make smaller amounts of products on harder times. they don't drive full speed to a brick wall like you seem to hope.
but who knows, perhaps some of current makers decide its not worth the investment, and leave the field for the rest. time will tell.
edit: been actually wondering do we see more camera makers in next years, rather than fewer. Chinese phone makers Huawei, Oppo, Vivo have been expanding fast into Asian markets. Huawei also into Western phone markets. there has been also been more new lenses from Chinese companies. when we will see first Chinese camera maker?
Pioneer
Veteran
In reality digital has not collapsed Skiff. The numbers you are referring to only show part of the story. The phone camera side is not there and, whether you want to consider it, they are digital cameras. In fact, they really kind of exemplify the promise of digital.
If you look at it from the right perspective, what has gone before has only been leading to this point. Digital cameras have basically been copies of the film cameras that came before them. But the phone camera is not. It is tiny, multi-tasking, and simplifies even further the task of taking a photo.
Mirrorless was ballyhooed as the replacement for the dslr when really the phone camera was the replacement for the compact and mirrorless camera. Certain cameras will remain. The dslr can take advantage of the same, quickly improving, sensor, software and optical technology that is enabling the phone camera.
As I have already said, it will be very interesting to see how things progress. We are smack dab in the middle of another complete revolution for photography and most of the people on these forums are bemoaning the fact that their favorite camera manufacturer may be on the ropes.
Agreed...!
KM-25
Well-known
Fuji E6 may be cheaper than Kodak color in some places, but not in the U.S. in terms of sheet film. So I think there are far too many distribution and import / export variables to make a general statement about it. And I feel like I can count on Kodak CN films being around FAR more than I can any film from Fuji, I am not alone in this either.
Neither Fuji or Kodak makes silver gelatin paper and that is, as far as I am concerned, the only paper that matters when doing things like fine art from start to finish. Silver halide based papers that are used with a computer / digital file do not have the same panache as the full darkroom experience for me and others who adore the black and white film experience.
But we can go on and on and on about this and get nowhere. You are talking big picture metrics here, not the right audience in some ways because a lot of us know that Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Leica and even Hasselblad are now doing at least well enough to keep introducing great new digital products time and time again. And they sell. Hasselblad's CFV50c digital back for the V system sold like hotcakes relatively speaking, I know, I bought one and it allows me to shoot more film on jobs I would otherwise be leaving the V system behind on.
So I have to ask....and I am not the only one who is thinking this I am sure, but....what purpose do you think it serves to post these provocative statements that for the most part usually only interest industry types...on a forum that is filled with people with a passion for either photographs, photographic equipment or both?
I ask this as a person who would outright quit taking photographs for pleasure or work if film were no longer an option ( B&W ).
Film vs digital is not unlike politics, when one takes the extreme view of either side, it often needlessly alienates the other viewpoint...and then any really meaningful discussion is lost.
Maybe consider taking a lighter handed approach to bringing about these state of the industry types of topics to an audience of people who by and large, just want to get out and make some nice photographs with cameras they enjoy using, regardless of medium or type.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Salvage is an economic term meaning no new parts manufactured but refurbished capacity available. Huge chunks of the auto industry works this way, as my late VW Westphalia van knew only too well.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Agreed. What we saw was a one-time switch from all-film to all-digital and that's just surge production.
The secondary story is that the market for digital compacts was eviscerated by smartphone cameras.
The current photography market is simply maturing and stabilizing around the smartphone and the optically superior dedicated market.
And that's all digital. It's also profitable when you look at how Sony has been investing in its fabs.
Historically prosumers owned more than one camera; compact and DSLR/RF. That halo market has always been core to the photographic industry since the 1970s compacts really came on the scene (Still have my XA). Now it's smartphone (with very good video at 4k no less) and some dedicated specialty camera based on optical variety and performance.
It's no longer even a discussion as a non-digital potential. I seriously doubt that Canon or Nikon are even looking at SLR remanufacture in large part because it was never bodies that made much margin; it was lenses. The potential for an ultra-low volume SLR being made to use ultra-low volume film products is a pipe dream.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Throwing fuel on the fire: dpreview.com reviewed the Huawei cellphone / "camera" and ranked it in second place behind the Canon 1DX mk II. Heretical!
Check it out here, if you dare:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/huawei-p9-camera-review
Check it out here, if you dare:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/huawei-p9-camera-review
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/1141024369/samples1/af2.jpeg
Apparently not only Vancouver is considered as good investment.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
You are incorrect, dpreview makes no such claim. In its review conclusion, what dpreview did say is this: "Don't expect Leica M-like image quality from the P9's dual-camera module but as far as smartphone cameras go, the Huawei's performance is close to the best in class."
The hysteria in this thread is getting downright comical. Calm down people. Smartphone cameras are replacing digital P&S cameras. Digital SLRs and mirrorless cameras sales are facing a maturing market. No need to upgrade one's equipment nearly as often. End of story.
Skiff
Well-known
They did market research of course, like all others. But the results of their market research were wrong, also like all others in the industry. All were surprised how fast the smartphone cameras evolved.
I hope nothing in this respect. And I have said that many times very clearly here. Please read my posts!
But I am not living in a bubble, and I look at the facts and at what is really happening in the industry. Because all that is affecting us enthusiast photographers in the mid and long term future.
Ignoring what is going on is not helpful at all.
Chinese camera makers are there for decades, lots of them (Great Wall, Seagull, Phenix, Fotoman, Chamonix just to name a few). They have produced millions of film cameras in the past (by the way numbers you have to add to the former CIPA film camera data because these Chinese manufacturers were and are not CIPA members).
Will some Chinese manufacturers enter the digital camera market? Unlikely, because a declining market with margins under extreme pressure is not attractive to new ones. And there is the technology gap: The established Japanese manufacturers have decades of R&D investments and technology advance. To come at least close to that would need extremly high investments, which you will not get back in a declining market.
Maybe a Chinese company may buy one of the established companies, when that is in trouble and need fresh capital.
Skiff
Well-known
Of course there is the smartphone market. But that is a market of its own. And our camera manufacturers are not producing smartphones. They are affected by the developments on the camera market. And that has consequences for them and for us. These consequences are the topic.