Film company = film cameras?

[Archiver]

Last night I was playing with my GRD III and thinking about the original GR1 series which is no longer in production. Hardly anyone makes film cameras any more except for niche players like the cheapo-lomo crowd and Fuji.

Now, Fuji make some great film cameras like the Klasse series, Natura series and their medium format rangefinders, which suggests that Fuji believes there is still a market for film cameras, at least of these types.

But Fuji also make film. Is it easier for Fuji to justify making film cameras since they still make film? And if so, that doesn't say much for Kodak. But then, I don't think Kodak ever had real high quality niche cameras like the GR1. I dont see a lot of people mooning over old Kodak cameras like they do Ricoh or Leica.

I was thinking that if there is a market for the Klasse cameras, surely there would be a market for a new GR1 series, especially in Japan. Does Ricoh not pursue this niche because they don't make film? How much would Fuji's film production influence their decision to make film cameras?

We'll probably never know the real answers as only Fuji insiders would know this, but I'd like to see what others think.

 

[Eric T]

The problem is that there is an enormous number of very high quality used film cameras available. Their number must easily satisfy the need for film cameras given the declining demand for film. So I think it would be VERY difficult for a company to compete in this niche market.

 

[keytarjunkie]

It's really the high-end niche camera makers that still produce stuff. I consider Fuji to be up there (well, almost). Leica, Zeiss, Alpa, Mamiya, Fuji. In no particular order. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few but you get the point. The Nikons and Canons, for all intensive purposes, have gotten out of the film business.

Ricoh was never really a high-end camera maker. They just happened to come up with, in my opinion, one of the best point and shoots on the market (discounting reliability!). I just played with a GR-1 today and it was a really nice camera. Not Leica nice. But still nice.

Fuji is certainly a unique case because they manufacture film. It's hard to see them going out of business since they are also so prevalent in the digital field, but we have certainly seen cuts in the film field from them as of late (crappier c-print paper for more money, less film selection now).

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

"I dont see a lot of people mooning over old Kodak cameras like they do Ricoh or Leica."

Well, you're either not moving in the "right" circles, or you need to get your eyes checked... Some of the German-made Kodaks, such as the Retina series were capable of making very fine images (not that I own one - yet). But a compact, foldable, pocket sized camera with a Xenon or Xenar lens has much going for it so I would certainly not refuse one if it presented itself at the right price. I got a friend's (actually, it was his grandfather's) Ib working again a while ago and was impressed. A RF version with premium lens would be a fine everyday camera.

I have an acknowledged weakness for 35mm leaf shuttered SLRs, so it is only a matter of time before I find myself an example of one of Kodak's Retina Reflex models. It would sit nicely with my Contaflex stash and the couple of Bessamatics I have, and like them it would certainly be used occasionally too.
Regards,
Brett

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

If you wished to investigate the Kodak RFs, right here at RFF would be as good a place as any to start...
Regards,
Brett

 

[jsrockit]

Most companies who make cameras these days are not satisfied with being in a small niche.