Where is the Bessa Digital?

[HHPhoto]

Trying to pressure Cosina to make digital cameras is about the same as trying to pressure Tokina or Tamron to make digital cameras.
All three have the same experience in making digital cameras:
None.

Fortunately Cosina is lead by competent and realistic people.
And not by naive dreamers.

Cheers, Jan

 

[jsrockit]

Maybe tech sheet masturbators are interested in ISO 25,600.
For photographers it is irrelevant, they don't need it.

Generalization at best.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Precisely! In much the way Nintendo stuck to playing cards, and Yamaha only makes pianos.

Wait, your comparison isn't so bad after all:

When some ask Cosina to build the «digital Bessa», then should Yamaha start to build the electronic Bösendorfer?

SHUDDER!

 

[NIKON KIU]

Radical, you need to look at a new Porsche.

It's like an airplane cockpit, they even give you a little TV in the middle!

I am a car man, I look at them all the time. If Stuttgart was building no-frills cars, they'll be out of business. I am afraid that may happen to lots of Photo Companies if they don't innovate and get out of the slump.
No one makes money by building things made in 1950s

But I do get your drift, I guess most of you don't get mine.
Cosina hasn't made a camera of their own since they discontinued the R series, they do have the ability of making cameras. It's not a big deal slapping a sensor in one, many companies have done, Cosina did it, they can partner with someone and easily do it.

I think they should, that's my opinion, they need to innovate. They will not survive by selling lenses.

Now that I said my last word, have a go at it you all.

Kiu

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

[…] No one makes money by building things made in 1950s […]

Well, there are e.g. the Bösendorfer I mentioned above, and many other pianos, or generally all serious music instruments — many of them (violins, trumpets, harps, etc. etc.) are built more like the 1850s, 1750s, 1650s, and they're are still fully capable, and their makers prosper and are financially healthy 😀

And the same applies to architecture: if you want a sustainable dwelling, you build it like in the 19th or even an earlier century 😀

 

[HHPhoto]

No one makes money by building things made in 1950s

Sorry, that is nonsense.
When trains and cars were invented, all "experts" said that will be the end for horses.
Today in Germany are living much more horses than in the 19.th century. Its a big, very profitable business.
Because of the medieval events and countless groups we have even a bigger production of swords, chain armours etc. today than in the Middle Age.
Even new tournaments and national championships for knights are taking place.

But I do get your drift, I guess most of you don't get mine.
Cosina hasn't made a camera of their own since they discontinued the R series, they do have the ability of making cameras. It's not a big deal slapping a sensor in one, many companies have done, Cosina did it, they can partner with somone and easily do it.

No, as explained to you here several times by lots of members including Stephen Gandy, Cosina did not do that. Epson did it. Cosina only made the camera body as an OEM supplier. All digital was made by Epson. And Epson left this business years ago.
And there are no other possible "partners" who would do that, because the only who have the technology are already on the market with their own products. No one wants to compete with himself.

I think they should, that's my opinion, they need to innovate.

Well, entering
- a declining market
- with no own capabilities in that area
- with lots of very big, established, very competent competitors
- with profitability problems even at the strongest players in the market
- offering a product which most probably can only be worse than the strong competition
has absolutely nothing to do with innovation.
That is just a plan to damage or to ruin your profitable core business.

An innovation would be a better (higher end) camera for Instax film:
- huge and increasing market
- unique product, no competition
- only relative small investment needed, all the needed technolgy is already in-house.

They will not survive by selling lenses.

Despite the challenging market they have so far survived by producing film cameras (they are still producing the FM-10 for Nikon) and lenses.
Lots of digital OEM manufacturers and even big companies like Epson, Casio, Samsung had to leave the digital camera production.

Cheers, Jan

 

[jsrockit]

Fujifilm sold 4.3 million Instax cameras in 2014.
5.7 million in 2015.
6.5 million in 2016.
And further several millions in the years before.

The demand for the films has been so strong that they had problems to keep up with the demand. They had to increase the production capacity, build even a new factory, and are now producing in three shifts per day, 24h without interruption.

There are good reasons why other companies like Leica have entered this market, too.

But it is still Instax. It's the film equivalent of a cell phone snap (generally speaking). I pretty sure most here are more interested in a roll film uptick that is supported by roll film cameras. Right now, Kodak is going to make Ektachrome again... but that was mostly supported by the movie industry demanding it and not still photography. Using Instax to support a huge film resurgence is sloppy at best. We should be happy that there are new players in the roll film world and that it will continue to exist. But there seem to be a few on these threads that think that these upticks in film manufacturing is signalling a huge return to film for still photography and that digital cameras will cease to exist. Both will continue to exist.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My daughter got one of those Fuji instant jobs, I even took a picture of her/BF with it.
It's sitting on her shelf where I suspect it will be for a long time. The first roll is finished and the novelty forgotten.

I suspect that's what's going to happen to those other 6 million...

Kiu

We have Fuji Instax at almost every store. Collecting dust. Never seen people buying film packs and have seen people using it maybe twice. Discounts are now offered and it has entered liquidation stores.

 

[Skiff]

We have Fuji Instax at almost every store. Collecting dust. Never seen people buying film packs and have seen people using it maybe twice.

Anecdotes are no evidence. I have a big camera store here locally. But I've never seen someone there buying a digital camera.
But of course I would never draw the conclusion from that that no one is buying digital cameras.

Fujfilm knows the sales numbers of Instax better than everyone else. They have increased both Instax film production and camera production.
They have introduced new camera models.
They are introducing new films. Last year the new BW film, this year the new square format film.
They would not do that without a strong increasing demand.

I am visiting every time the biggest photo fair in the world, the Photokina.
Last year the Nikon and Canon booths were quite empty, and the Fuji Instax booth was totally crowded with young photographers. Fuji did some events there: So much people wanted to participate that there had been waiting times for more than one hour.

 

[Skiff]

But it is still Instax. It's the film equivalent of a cell phone snap (generally speaking).

No, there is much more to it.

I pretty sure most here are more interested in a roll film uptick that is supported by roll film cameras.

Exactly that is already there. The prices for several good used film cameras are increasing. Hasselblads e.g. are now going for 2-3x the prices of some years ago.
Prices for Contax 645 are almost insane. Prices for Nikon FM3A, FM2, FE2, Leica R6.2 also have gone up.
And film manufacturers are reporting increasing demand.

Right now, Kodak is going to make Ektachrome again... but that was mostly supported by the movie industry demanding it and not still photography.

Wrong. The demand for photo film played a decisive role in this decision. Especially the very strong demand from Germany (Kodak sold more than 60% of their Ektachrome production to Germany).

Using Instax to support a huge film resurgence is sloppy at best.

No, because by Instax millions of new, young users are getting in contact with film. And lots of them are discovering the medium further and try standard film as well.

We should be happy that there are new players in the roll film world and that it will continue to exist. But there seem to be a few on these threads that think that these upticks in film manufacturing is signalling a huge return to film for still photography and that digital cameras will cease to exist.

Wrong. No one is saying that. Only you are insinuating that to others. You should stop that, it is bad discussion style.

 

[mpaniagua]

On my side, I practically abandoned film about 4 years about. Lately, I've bough FP4+,HP5+,expired Trix and Plus-X, Kentmere and Delta 100. So yeah, I think film sales are increasing 🙂. Don't really think it will reach the volumes prior to digital, but demand is rising nonetheless. Only reason it wouldn't reach mainstream volumes is because of practical issues and because, today, contrary to when film was mainstream, there are options to film (cell phone, digital cameras, Instax, etc.).

About Bessa digital I don't honestly think it would come to be, because, like said before, Cosina doesn't have the resources to make it. It was pretty different with the R and T series because they already had most of the design for the camera (shutter, light meter, etc. where taken from SLR cameras).

Making a Digital Cameras isn't really just sticking a sensor in a body. It requires calculation, design and resources that Cosina simply doesn't have. That aside to the fact that digital market is contracting.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Cosina came out with another series of film Bessas. Film market, even if niche, is increasing. I wouldn't mind a Bessa with both shutter and aperture priority 🙂

Regards.

 

[c.poulton]

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Cosina came out with another series of film Bessas. Film market, even if niche, is increasing. I wouldn't mind a Bessa with both shutter and aperture priority 🙂

Regards.

Let's turn this thread on it's head:

"Where is the (next) Bessa Film Camera"? 😀

 

[willie_901]

Let's turn this thread on it's head:

"Where is the (next) Bessa Film Camera"? 😀

It's in someone's dreams.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

It's in someone's dreams.

Actually, since they were prepared to build a Contax S2, they're also basically prepared to build a Leica R6.4 (my dream😀), or: a new Bessa, of course 😛

 

[willie_901]

Sorry, that is nonsense.
When trains and cars were invented, all "experts" said that will be the end for horses.
Today in Germany are living much more horses than in the 19.th century. Its a big, very profitable business.
Because of the medieval events and countless groups we have even a bigger production of swords, chain armours etc. today than in the Middle Age.
Even new tournaments and national championships for knights are taking place.

...

This is irrelevant at best.

Do you really believe trains and cars have not replaced horses as the primary mode of transportation?

The information we need is the ratio of people-to-horses for the 19th century and today. We need to know the percent of GNP spent on horse for transportation in the 19th century compared to the what's spent today on equestrian hobbies. The costs have to be normalized

Of course, the equestrian business is profitable. Meeting the needs of hobbyists can be lucrative. Personally I think it's wonderful people enjoy equestrian activities. This doesn't mean car companies will start horse-breeding farms.

An identical approach regarding film and film cameras applies. Pick any decade you'd like and do a proper normalized analysis.

 

[jsrockit]

Wrong. No one is saying that. Only you are insinuating that to others. You should stop that, it is bad discussion style.

I'm not going to stop anything because I've done nothing wrong. I'm not the one posting "the sky is falling" threads about digital all of the time nor do I disparage film ever. Film is this medium's history and I've used plenty of it myself. My favorite photographers from the past (and sometimes present) have used film. I just do not see the HUGE resurgence that others see based on anecdotal evidence. Honestly, I hope both film and digital thrive and I see no reason they can't.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

[…]
An identical approach regarding film and film cameras applies. Pick any decade you'd like and do a proper normalized analysis.

As you've probably seen, after my first car comparison, I introduced the classical music instrument comparison. I'd like you to argue against this one, please 😀

 

[HHPhoto]

This is irrelevant at best.

No, not at all, because I've just referred to KIU's statement that you cannot make money with products which were invented some time ago.
Of course you can make money (even lots of it) with products which were invented some time ago.

To demonstrate just that I have simply given some examples.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Anecdotes are no evidence. I have a big camera store here locally. But I've never seen someone there buying a digital camera.
But of course I would never draw the conclusion from that that no one is buying digital cameras....
.

Awesome! Here is another "anecdote" for you. I'm living at the edge of the fourth largest city in North America and here is only one store which I would call as big camera store for entire region, which is Great Toronto Area.

I'm drawing conclusion by how Fuji Instax cameras and else looks at every local store which is shelving it. It is usually in less accessible corner and slightly tacky due to the old dust covering it. "Sale", "off" labels are also emerging.

Photo exhibition is good thing to visit. But, could you, please, tell me which region of the world is full of young people taking it on Instax. Canada has next to none. I see regularly young ones with cameras on the streets. Mostly they walk with DSLRs and some with mirrorless. But I have seen only twice with Instax so far.

 

[traveler_101]

No, not at all, because I've just referred to KIU's statement that you cannot make money with products which were invented some time ago.
Of course you can make money (even lots of it) with products which were invented some time ago.

To demonstrate just that I have simply given some examples.

Cheers, Jan

Aren't you guys arguing over different markets - as in mass versus niche? Mass markets are made by a cycle that begins with technological innovation, proceeds through volume production and is followed by cost reduction. Niche markets are quite variable, aim at "aesthetic consumption" and often recycle older technologies - as in vinyl (records) and film. Personally I am not a great fan of mass market products all that much - though I use them (when I rent a car or buy a micro four thirds camera, for instance) - but in terms of taste I like aesthetic consumption - esp. if I can afford it. On the other hand, analytically speaking, could it be that we are now seeing with mirrorless another cycle of technological innovation that will lead to a very different mass camera market in the future?