Film Not Dead Yet, Says Kodak - Introduces Film SLR

George S. said:
And the new "consumer" DSLRs with lens are now around $500- $600,
Click to expand...

A lot of film can be bought and developed for $500. That would keep many people (like my mom, for example) shooting for a good ten years!
 
photogdave said:
How long is a printer going to last before the heads get so clogged that it's easier to throw it out and replace it than to fix it? Three to four years? How much are you going to spend on ink in that time?
Click to expand...
Hm, a Meopta Axomat 5a enlarger is available for 235 Euro, a lamp for this is around 23 Euro, Paper isn't free, too as are negative sleeves.

So I call that even 🙂

How are you going to back up your images? Cheap DVDs that can corrupt within a couple of years, or more expensive archival gold DVDs that cost about $3 each? Maybe you spend about $200-300 on a decent 500GB hard drive that may or not fail in a couple of years?
Nothing personal here. Pick the method that suits you best but consider all the factors.
Click to expand...

CAN corrupt, not DO corrupt. And duplicating DVDs is a breeze compared to duplicating negatives.


But my day job is document management and when I can store someones electricity or water bill for some 30 years, I can do that with my files as well.

Admittedly, I have an unfair advantage, I have access to reliable media and know the procedures to keep digital files, where I'll probably fail miserable with an archival print 🙂

Oh, I use DVDs with AZO dyes and scratch proof coating instead of gold plated ones, my oldest is some 7 years old and still readable.
 
Socke said:
Hm, a Meopta Axomat 5a enlarger is available for 235 Euro, a lamp for this is around 23 Euro, Paper isn't free, too as are negative sleeves.

So I call that even 🙂



CAN corrupt, not DO corrupt. And duplicating DVDs is a breeze compared to duplicating negatives.


But my day job is document management and when I can store someones electricity or water bill for some 30 years, I can do that with my files as well.

Admittedly, I have an unfair advantage, I have access to reliable media and know the procedures to keep digital files, where I'll probably fail miserable with an archival print 🙂

Oh, I use DVDs with AZO dyes and scratch proof coating instead of gold plated ones, my oldest is some 7 years old and still readable.
Click to expand...
I take your points. Basically I was trying to point out, as you have, that it's not all cut-and-dried. There are so many variables that it's useless to argue that one method is more economic than the other. We should all just carry on doing it the way we like doing it!
 
antiquark said:
A lot of film can be bought and developed for $500. That would keep many people (like my mom, for example) shooting for a good ten years!
Click to expand...

My mom even longer 🙂

But how much film do YOU use? And Paper, and chemicals, and sleeves, and and and ...

Hm, I got a, used, 5D less than two weeks ago, from the file numbers I took some 500 pictures since then.
 
photogdave said:
I take your points. Basically I was trying to point out, as you have, that it's not all cut-and-dried. There are so many variables that it's useless to argue that one method is more economic than the other. We should all just carry on doing it the way we like doing it!
Click to expand...

Exaktly! And I won't give up B/W film only because there are digital cameras, I like film! And I like my Contax G2 and shoot slides because I'll never get a digital Contax G2.

That's why I think it's a good idea to have film cameras for education, they still teach children to write with a pen and to paint with watercolor. Why not photography with film?
 
bmattock ...."Sony Betamax ring any bells? Elcassette?

HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray sound familiar at all?"


there you go.. bringing up expensive and bad memories... nice ;D
 
Socke said:
But how much film do YOU use? And Paper, and chemicals, and sleeves, and and and ...
Click to expand...
Don't ask, for me, film and digital photography is a big money pit.

Socke said:
Hm, I got a, used, 5D less than two weeks ago, from the file numbers I took some 500 pictures since then.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the digital style of shooting is definitely different than traditional film. These days it's normal to take 100 pictures of a kids birthday part. In the film days you'd take a couple of pics of the kids by the birthday cake, and 5 pics of the kids playing.

So far I've taken about 13,000 digital pics since getting my first digital camera 2 years ago. Can you imagine the cost if that was on film?

That seems to be the fallacy when people say that digital is cheaper than film -- they assume you'd still be taking 13,000 pictures if you were using a film camera.
 
Only a few months ago a friend took up a photography course at her University and bought a good Nikon FM on eBay. She lives in Belgium. For you Ameerikans, that actually is in the Western world. She also owns a laptop and a cr*ppy digital P&S. She thinks traditional B&W is more fun.

Not quite dead yet...
 
antiquark said:
A lot of film can be bought and developed for $500. That would keep many people (like my mom, for example) shooting for a good ten years!
Click to expand...

But what are you assuming, that the camera, lens and flash is going to be free? Those items have to come from the $500 figure too, you know.
Now you're down to maybe $200. So what does that leave you, 20 or so rolls to buy and develop and print? At 2 or 3 real "keepers" per roll, that's a lot of waste. At least with digital you only need to print the ones you want to.

There's pros and cons to both systems, I'm not bashing film, I'm actually shooting a lot of film lately. But for convenience, my Olympus 410 isn't easily beat either.
 
It seems lots of people here are forgetting that 90% of the people walking around with digital point and shoots, or low end DSLR's don't even look at their pictures on a computer, or do any editing what so ever. Infact, you can bet your bottom dollar that alot of those people don't even know how to edit their photos, or even get them onto a computer. And the ones that do know how to get them onto their computer just look at them on their computer, email them around, and never get them printed. They do all their "editing" in camera, and then walk into the mini mart, plug their memory card into the machine, and order 18cent prints.

To include a computer editing software, and a printer in your start up digital prices is just ignoring the mass market.

A quick search on best buy shows me in the USA you can get a 9mp fuji point and shoot for 170 dollars. Most people will never need more than 5 or 6mp. Film still cheaper?
 
Bill, thanks for the link in the first post. It's one of the more bizarre side stories I've seen recently. If they go ahead with this Vivitar deal, I wonder where they will be selling them. I suspect the NA and European markets are already saturated with good used SLRs.

Gene
 
photogdave said:
There are so many variables that it's useless to argue that one method is more economic than the other. We should all just carry on doing it the way we like doing it!
Click to expand...

Yet you, along with all of us, continue to argue which method is more economic than the other. Useless, perhaps, but we keep on doing it even while decrying it as useless. 🙂
 
Whether we use film or digital, how much of the world market do our opinions represent? Very little, I think.

I mean, because it's cost effective for an American to buy a dSLR and a nice printer does not mean that the same will be possible in developing countries... maybe not for another decade or so. Some people need to actually get on a plane and go do some touring before presenting grand theories about the demise of film.

[As usual, this discussion reminds me of the cigarette situation in the US: a lot of people think that because smoking is on the decline here and we all know it isn't good for you, that must mean that it's in decline worldwide. Wrong... dead wrong.]

I am just saying that there is still plenty of market for film products throughout Asia.

Someone above said that Kodak isn't stupid. Well I am not going to comment directly on that 😉 I hope that's right, but in any case, I do think that Fuji has known about the potential for growth in the Asian markets for some time. Too quickly people forget that Fuji is still pushing film and film cameras in Asia. And Ilford has recently found a new place in the Asian marketplace too.

Look at the megaperls webshop, they give us a glimpse of some things that aren't available in the US but which are sold in Japan. Notice that they have some items not on the US or European market, including instant cameras and you name it.
 
bmattock said:
Me being one of them.



And that's what it comes down to - do what you want. I like film too. And digital. I refuse to play games about 'better', 'best', 'superior' or whatever - do what you enjoy doing, I'm all for it.

But if you need to convince yourself that you're doing it because film is cheaper - you can tell that story walking. It wasn't true two years ago, and it sure as hell ain't true now. Every mathematical attempt to 'prove' it comes down to playing funny with the numbers so it comes out in the luddite's favor. Believe what you want, Alice, but I ain't going down that rabbit-hole.
Click to expand...

Having played with the numbers myself, I think it works out in the end that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Over a decade, it comes out about the same. In the SHORT term, digital cameras can be much more expensive; over a medium term, film is much more expensive; if you look at it over a longer term yet, with depreciation and replacements, they about balance out. It is probably still a little less expensive to go with a digital camera even over the very long term, but not as much as you might think. I think the difference really is negligable. Of course some other major factors would be how much you use your cameras and whether you are using a professional model or a p&s.

In addition, the two types of cameras are not really that interchangable, in spite of all the hype to the contrary. Getting into which is best would be like saying lasers are better than bicycles -- whether that's true or not depends one hell of a lot on what you want to do with it.
 
bmattock said:
Sony.

Betamax ring any bells? Elcassette?

HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray sound familiar at all?
Click to expand...

Yep, but those are not films. BTW, I think both Betamax and the Elcassette were much better than what we wound up stuck with.

bmattock said:
Everybody loves to create their own 'standards' and then try to make the market do it their way. Agfa tried with their cassettes, but Kodak's version whomped 'em. And then there is Minox. Oh yes, it goes on and on. Kodak was just the most prolific in the film 'standards' game. But all the enduring cartridge formats - Kodak. Every single one.
Click to expand...

Minox film and cameras are still being sold (they didn't leave their customers stranded in midstream), and the Agfa cartridges were 35mm. In fact, Kodak's 126 film cartridges used pretty much the same principal as the Agfa cartridges.

bmattock said:
By the way - I agree with you about Kodak's technical prowess and marketing idiocy. Big time.
Click to expand...
 
An "attestable" comment you posted

An "attestable" comment you posted

stuken said:
It seems lots of people here are forgetting that 90% of the people walking around with digital point and shoots, or low end DSLR's don't even look at their pictures on a computer, or do any editing what so ever. Infact, you can bet your bottom dollar that alot of those people don't even know how to edit their photos, or even get them onto a computer.
Click to expand...

I can attest to that comment about downloading illiteracy. I have had way more than one person in my digital photo classes who had never downloaded from their digital camera. In fact, I had one lady who had been to Europe twice, and had filled four memory cards, and had yet to take a picture off the memory cards. She signed up for the class expressly to learn how to download the pictures to her computer. However, even then, she thought she should put the "used" cards away with the pictures on them, and continue to buy new cards for continued image taking.

One thing about conferring with like minded people on these forums. It insulates one from the real world and how people view our chosen hobby/pastime/avocation.

I sell quite a few film cameras on eBay and a good percentage of them are going to Pacific Rim nations and Europe. The asian market is good for post world war II cameras that were unable to be sold as home market cameras. They are making a decent effort to bring them home.
 
I'm beginning to think that film and digital aren't even the same "sport" anymore. Many of my digital P&S friends (but not all) only look at their pictures on the little LCD-and just leave the camera home when it fills up. Honest to God!
I'm popular because I make prints. Everybody likes them! Many don't even know how to make them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom