Nikon going out of the film camera business

[bmattock]

Bill,

We've been exporting polluting industries for decades. We'll just do a LBO on the Kodak and Fernia plants and move production to Mexico or futher off-shore.

We're talking global markets.

I shoot all kinds of film - do you think I give a hoot where they make it?

Regards,
George

That's why Kodak invested heavily in all five Chinese film manufacturers. Originally, they thought they were going to steal a march on Fuji - both were fighting for market share of a billion-plus emerging middle-class economy (China is going to eat the USA, by the way. Ten years and we all speak Chinese. That's another story.).

But China is not going to buy film cameras - they're going digital and technology jumping just like other newly-minted industrialized nations. No copper lines for phones - straight to wireless. Same with photography. So that left Kodak holding a billion-dollar investment in Lucky film company.

But Kodak got it right. Major need to make nicey-nice with China. Offshore manufacture of cheap consumer level digicams and remaining film plants can be built there - Chinese gov't doesn't care who gets cancer down the road. So Kodak got a way big feather in their cap - they were allowed by the Chinese govt to essentially take over all remaining film manufacture in China - Chinese never do that. They've got a very nice place there.

So Kodak can make film in China longer than they can in the USA, and that's great for us, and it follows your logic. But these plants are already built. Regardless of what else happens, they aren't going to build any NEW plants - in China or anywhere else.

Cost of entry into this field is too high. Wish it wasn't.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

I don't believe that any of these companies ever made anything on license from Nikon, meaning that Nikon has never made a dime off sales by anything they sell. Cosina has done some work for Nikon as a subcontractor OEM), but this is a different matter.

I agree. I recall reading an article about it - the author asked and was told by both sides that they do not license from Nikon (and Canon, Pentax, et al) but rather reverse-engineer. In some cases, they've missed a beat and had to recall and rechip a clone lens that didn't quite match the unpublished specs from the OEM.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ch1]

Bill,

Don't get me wrong here but - I love you man!

You are the some of the yeast that gets this bread a'risin'!

Ideologically, I probably have much more in common with those Euros - but you and I are "friggin' 'mericans" and have to stick together! We might shoot down the black helicopters for different reasons but down they come! 😎

More on topic, there's a great thread going on right now about Lucky film. I love it because folks on that one are totally ignorant of this "film is dead" one.

Most amazing this is that the title of THIS thread is misleading if you read the initial post.

I tried to stay on topic but what the hey, off it went! I think you helped hi-jack it! 😛

Anyway, I'm grabbing some more mid-'70's to mid-'80's Nikon SLR manuals on eBay and keeping a healthy stock of required batteries. Since I am now 54 y.o. I am at the point where I can freeze most films until there is no personal tomorrow.

Now, mind you, I do need to take a course on B&W developing (have no interest in chem process though) - and probably should stock-in in a couple of scanners - but overall I think I'm set until I'm not around anymore.

And after that it's: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a demn!"

So, what do you wanna be when you grow up? :bang:

Regards,
George

 

[nwcanonman]

I don't know what you guys are talking about, but I'm taking my covey of MF Nikons to my chest and giving them a a comfort hug.
~ ; - )

 

[ch1]

I don't believe that any of these companies ever made anything on license from Nikon, meaning that Nikon has never made a dime off sales by anything they sell. Cosina has done some work for Nikon as a subcontractor (OEM), but this is a different matter.

Err...have you ever heard of patents?

 

[nwcanonman]

Is this a problem? How many slrs do you intend to buy in the next 5-10 years. How many has Pentax, Minolta, Nikon, Suzuki, just checkin' to see if you're reading, and others have made in the last 10-15 years that are still fully functional. I just bought a nearly new X700, Minolta for those uninitiated to the big M, and that with my X370 will last till I die, I'm 59 as of today. So, again, how many new film cameras can we buy? As long as film is available, I won't have any problems, and I don't think most of you will either. Buck up boys, there's film to burn!!! This is to cheer you all up!

.............
Actually I have an N80 that's still working like new (bought 4 years ago) and just picked up an F100 (like mint, but for less than the N80 cost me new). I expect the F100 will be working right beside my F3HP/T up until Im eating dirt.
😀

 

[ch1]

.............
Actually I have an N80 that's still working like new (bought 4 years ago) and just picked up an F100 (like mint, but for less than the N80 cost me new). I expect the F100 will be working right beside my F3HP/T up until Im eating dirt.
😀

Yes I expect the present crop of autos (at least the real F-bodies) will outlive those of us who are "of a certain age" - your pick on that one.

Nonethess, machines break and it could be hard to find a repair person in a couple of decades who knows what a AF film camera is.

So, I figure, keep a few MFs around - just in case. After all, if Nion RFs are still working now - think how long the MF SLRs from the 60's through 80's will last! 😎 😎

 

[ch1]

I agree. I recall reading an article about it - the author asked and was told by both sides that they do not license from Nikon (and Canon, Pentax, et al) but rather reverse-engineer. In some cases, they've missed a beat and had to recall and rechip a clone lens that didn't quite match the unpublished specs from the OEM.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Bill,

How do you "reverse engineer" a lens mount?

Maybe I'm wrong here, and if so, please enlighten; but whatever glass you put in your tube is your design. However, it seems to me that mating it with my bodies requires using a mounting system uniquely my design.

Hence I license you so you can build a compatible interface. to my system

No?

George

 

[Huck Finn]

Err...have you ever heard of patents?

Err . . . Ever hear of admitting when you're wrong?

 

[jaapv]

Illigitimi noncarborundem

I think I have read this somewhere before. It keeps nagging me. Was it some old SF novel? Was it the Wooster battle-cry?
Byuphoto-enlighten me - it is abrading my mind!

 

[Andy K]

Anyone can go into business making paint and even paper in their garage or basement.

Not so with photographic film. Even if they could, in the US, the EPA would prevent it.

No access to the raw chemicals to make emulsions anymore - Eastman Chemical is one of the biggest suppliers - do you think they'll be making them long after they get out of the film biz themselves?

No new film manufacturing plants, anywhere, ever again.

Old plants will be slowly shut down - it will cost many megamillions for EPA-type superfund kinda cleanup on many. No small company will want that liability, so no one will buy them and that liability. Therefore, no old plants, either.

Color film is over in less than two years. B&W in ten. Fact.

No cottage industry, no film at all. Glass plates, maybe.

Sorry, film is not paint, canvas, parchment, or buggy whips.

"Color film is over in less than two years. B&W in ten. Fact."

Can you back this up with proof? You must be very high up in the industry to make such a strong statement.

Film dying because people stop making film cameras? Film will die when people stop USING film cameras. There are people using large format cameras which are over a hundred years old, people using glass plate, tintype etc. People making their own emulsions. People using pinhole, people using ancient lenses...

As for me if film were to become unavailable, and that is very unlikely, I'll move into tintypes or glass plate. The chemicals for making your own emulsions are freely available.

 

[Andy K]

Like I said - making photographic film is one of the single most polluting operations that there is. The chemicals are toxic, hard to handle, hard to come by, and hard to apply correctly. Even when done by experts - the legacy is a horrifying mess such as the one Kodak faces as part of their switch to digital.

Oh really?

http://www.computertakeback.com/the_problem/index.cfm

 

[thmk]

I also thought about the pollution problem and I am wondering if there are any case studies comparing traditional and digital in all aspects starting from production of all the necessary equipment up to the costs for the environment. To my mind the "digital revolution" generates a much higher request for photo equipment than in the past. But most of the commonly sold stuff is made of plastic and as already mentioned you need a computer or at least an additional printer and ink to get "real" pictures. Is this "better" for the environment than less plastic equipment combined with a higher amount of needed chemicals?

Cheers
Thomas-Michael

 

[VinceC]

Hmmm. When I visited my dentist a few weeks ago, they took my mouth x-rays with film. As do tens of thousands of dental offices and hospitals every day. Black and white to boot. Not a big consumer market, but a strong niche market nonetheless.

>>I never thought I'd see a used Nikon F4S for $265.
http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT...curpic=0&dpsp=0
I have heard that the life expectancy of a liquid crystal display is about 10 years. Notice some of the equipment listed has LCD "bleed"<<

When I went to Saudi Arabia in September 1990, with the summer heat still pushing well into the triple digits, photographers with their new F4s were complaining that their LCDs were blacking out because of the temperatures. My older mechanical cameras, including a couple of RF bodies, performed just fine. Still do.

 

[Socke]

I don't print at home a lot, that's what minilabs are made for 🙂

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

How do you "reverse engineer" a lens mount?

Maybe I'm wrong here, and if so, please enlighten; but whatever glass you put in your tube is your design. However, it seems to me that mating it with my bodies requires using a mounting system uniquely my design.

Hence I license you so you can build a compatible interface. to my system

No?

George

It is a good point, and I don't know the answer to it. I will try to find the magazine article where I read the story about the reverse-engineering.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

"Color film is over in less than two years. B&W in ten. Fact."

Can you back this up with proof? You must be very high up in the industry to make such a strong statement.

Simple deductive reasoning. I can say that I will die in the next 50 years. Fact.

I don't have to be able to produce a death certificate or invent time travel for that to be true.

Kodak has said they want to be out of the film business by 2008. In fact, they're moving away from film as fast as their feet can carry them, because film sales fell off a cliff. I stand by my statement.

Film dying because people stop making film cameras? Film will die when people stop USING film cameras. There are people using large format cameras which are over a hundred years old, people using glass plate, tintype etc. People making their own emulsions. People using pinhole, people using ancient lenses...

No, Andy, demonstrably wrong.

The niches you refer to are tiny bubbles in a population base. The entire nation of Sweden could not keep film alive if the rest of the world were using digital, let alone a few dabblers in cool older technology. "People" are not using these systems - a very vanishingly tiny percentage of photographers are. REALLY tiny.

Film will die when people stop USING film cameras.

Stuff and nonsense. How many? One? No? If one guy is soldiering on with film, will there be a factory making film for him? No. OK, then, how about a thousand? No? How many does it take to keep ONE film factory open and producing film?

Film production will stop when it is no longer profitable to make film for a wafer-thin segment of the photo-taking public. Which is about now, give or take a couple years.

As for me if film were to become unavailable, and that is very unlikely, I'll move into tintypes or glass plate. The chemicals for making your own emulsions are freely available.

You can most likely create your own glass plates, I agree. Color slides? Not one chance in a million. Not even primitive color print film.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Oh really?

Yes, really. I guess you didn't go to the EPA website or look at the information I posted. Yes, computer production pollutes a lot too. They haven't had a 100 year head start like Kodak, et al have.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

I also thought about the pollution problem and I am wondering if there are any case studies comparing traditional and digital in all aspects starting from production of all the necessary equipment up to the costs for the environment. To my mind the "digital revolution" generates a much higher request for photo equipment than in the past. But most of the commonly sold stuff is made of plastic and as already mentioned you need a computer or at least an additional printer and ink to get "real" pictures. Is this "better" for the environment than less plastic equipment combined with a higher amount of needed chemicals?

Cheers
Thomas-Michael

That's the 'more better' argument. My industry is not bad because another pollutes worse. The EPA has numerous film production sites on superfund cleanup lists and lists of worst polluters - that's demonstrable fact. You can believe that computer production pollutes more all you like - you may be right in fact. It does not change what film production is, was, and remains. I stand by my statements - there is no way anyone would get EPA approval to build a new photographic film production manufacturing plant in the USA today.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[sfb_dot_com]

I think I have read this somewhere before. It keeps nagging me. Was it some old SF novel? Was it the Wooster battle-cry?
Byuphoto-enlighten me - it is abrading my mind!

Don't know for sure where it comes from, but the rough translation is: Don't let the B*%$*^ds grind you down!

Andy