Ilford cheaper than Kodak? In the US?

[crawdiddy]

I noticed a comment in a recent thread (something like What Film to take on Trip). The comment was made by someone in the US, and he said that while he likes Tri-X and HP5+, the Kodak product is cheaper.

I live in the US also, but I find the opposite to be true.

I prefer to purchase 10 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm film at a time, and look for the lowest price. I'm also not too concerned about expired film, especially if it's recently expired. I search *bay, and of course compare with local retail suppliers also. But I always find it cheaper on the 'bay.

I have a slight preference for HP5+, but I'm open to Tri-X.

But lately when I search for 10 rolls of film, I find HP5+ about $10 cheaper than Tri-X for 10 rolls.

Why is that?

In a way I'd like to support Kodak-- not that my meager consumption of B&W film matters, but as a matter of principle. But why can't they make it competitive?

I just checked again, and found 10 rolls of HP5+ for $35, vs. Tri-X for $46. And btw, this seems to hold true for other products, such as Delta 100, Plus-x, T-Max, etc.

Has anyone else wondered about this? I've noticed some UK posters say that Ilford film is cheaper than Kodak in the UK.

Am I simply looking in the wrong places to find deals on Tri-X?

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

At the camera store I shop at they sell from cheapest to priciest: Fuji, Ilford, Kodak. This is just for black and white films, don't know their prices for color.

 

[Darkhorse]

I think the people saying the Kodak is cheaper are the ones using Arista Premium. Otherwise there's not much difference in price between Ilford and Kodak. Fuji's B&Ws do seem cheaper than both but are less popular I guess.

 

[gb hill]

I'm saving even more by shooting Arista film. Everyone, even guru's such as Tom A. are saying it's tri-x. I even bought a batch of Arista edu. but yet to try it. I see that Freestyle sells HP-5 & Tri-X for the same price. $3.99 for a 36 roll.