Leica M10 Monochrom vs Kodak Tri-X 400: B&W Digital vs Film

[agentlossing]

I'm not following your logic here. If what I want is a quality all metal 35mm manual focus mechanical camera and lenses (and assuming I can't or won's pay $5,000 for an MP or M-A), what new camera am I supposed to buy? How would buying, for example, a brand new D850 or Z7 encourage Nikon to make a new FM3a? Now that the F6 (which is a great camera but not really what I would want either) is gone, there is no way I can buy a new Nikon film camera to vote with my dollars and tell Nikon what I'd like them to make.
If Nikon could make and sell a new FM3a for the FM's inflation-adjusted price of $1,150, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
I wish the manufacturers well with their sales of new cameras, but until they make something that I actually want, I'm not going to buy something I don't want to generate profits to keep them in business, in the hopes that might see fit to make something I would like in the future.

Right there with you - if a manufacturer (not stratospheric like Leica) made the film camera I wanted, I'd buy it new in a heartbeat. But if a camera manufacturer is not making exactly what I want, I will NOT be a good consumer and drop a lot of money for new gear, and I WILL buy it used, and I'll sleep better at night knowing I'm not being wasteful with my money. The argument that we're part of the problem because we don't buy new is pernicious at the best of times, but in this case it's not even vaguely relevant.

My allegiance is to my personal finances, and never to the quarterly profit reports of some corporation majority owned by people who couldn't give a crap about the product being manufactured.

 

[Godfrey]

The problem is that the damage has already been done. People wouldn't pay what the new film cameras would cost, and the manufacturers concentrated on making and selling digital cameras instead. So now we get to buy ancient, used film cameras, with all the problems that occasionally entails, and the manufacturers no longer make anything like them.

No one makes anything even remotely like a 1957 Kodak Retina IIc nowadays, which is why I bought one, have sent it off for service, and have collected all the lenses and a sampling of the accessories for it ... Because I too want that sort of thing and no one makes anything like it any more.

The problem I'm pointing out is that if all we ever complain about is how much something costs, and we drive the company out of production of what we want because of it, well, we're left with the situation that the things we want are no longer made. It's fine to say, "I'd love an M-A but I can't afford one." and to buy a less expensive alternative, new or used. But if everyone says it, and no one buys them, eventually the M-A will no longer be made and there will be no more quality film cameras made at all.

G

 

[agentlossing]

The demand is different for film cameras now than it was when digital was up and coming and all anyone wanted to hear about. If manufacturers don't try new film cameras then your supposed line about the market not wanting to pay what they'd cost is just so much empty talk.

Last I checked, Lomography is almost always sold out of their LCA+ and seems to do quite well with their little niche!

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

The problem is that the damage has already been done. People wouldn't pay what the new film cameras would cost, and the manufacturers concentrated on making and selling digital cameras instead. So now we get to buy ancient, used film cameras, with all the problems that occasionally entails, and the manufacturers no longer make anything like them.

No one makes anything even remotely like a 1957 Kodak Retina IIc nowadays, which is why I bought one, have sent it off for service, and have collected all the lenses and a sampling of the accessories for it ... Because I too want that sort of thing and no one makes anything like it any more.

The problem I'm pointing out is that if all we ever complain about is how much something costs, and we drive the company out of production of what we want because of it, well, we're left with the situation that the things we want are no longer made. It's fine to say, "I'd love an M-A but I can't afford one." and to buy a less expensive alternative, new or used. But if everyone says it, and no one buys them, eventually the M-A will no longer be made and there will be no more quality film cameras made at all.

G

That makes more sense. It's the reality of a saturated market—everyone who wants one already has one, so demand drops to the point that selling prices for new products dip below the cost of production and marketing. Any further production of film cameras would have to be as a low-volume niche market product. (Leica obviously is brilliant at this.)



Forgive me for going back to Nikon again, but it's the brand I'm most familiar with. I think we're at an interesting point where the prices of used FM3As are reaching or exceeding the inflation-adjusted price they sold for new. Similarly, prices of used F6s shot up after they were discontinued recently. I do wonder if anyone in Nikon's product planning and marketing departments takes notice of these trends. However, because Nikon shut down (or is in the process of shutting down) camera production in Japan, I think it unlikely that it would be economically viable for Nikon to produce an occasional run of these models as low-volume products.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

The demand is different for film cameras now than it was when digital was up and coming and all anyone wanted to hear about. If manufacturers don't try new film cameras then your supposed line about the market not wanting to pay what they'd cost is just so much empty talk.

Last I checked, Lomography is almost always sold out of their LCA+ and seems to do quite well with their little niche!

I have also noticed that Lomo is often out of stock on its LCA models. I'm very curious about their sales volume.