Whither the camera industry?

[montresor]

This is one of the more depressing threads I've read. Digital file storage seems so potentially corruptible. Yes, negatives can also get destroyed, but still, there's something terrifying about how a digital file can be gone in a nanosecond if something isn't exactly right. My day job is in radio, and we were completely knocked off line the other day by a ten-second power outage. We had our tech guy running around trying to bring all the broadcast and production studios back on line. We lost revenue from commercials that didn't happen (outage at a daypart change -- oops!), and everything that was "in medias res" in production was lost. In the old days, when you worked with analog boards and edited tape with a razor blade, a ten-second power outage was a minor interruption. Now it's a money-losing disaster. So I for one have never been convinced of the superiority of new technology. There's something comforting about a Zeiss Contarex that works without batteries or processors. Maybe I'll just go back to glass plates. I always wanted to try 8x10 anyway.

 

[Don Simon]

Accurate or not it does seem a fairly depressing vision. So companies like Pentax will go (as Minolta already did)? And there will only be the big two left? Excellent. Obviously the benefit to the consumer will be enormous, since choice is a terrible thing and it's not like those other companies were innovative or made good glass anyway. Clearly Canon and Nikon between them will make everything that every photographer could ever want... Did any of that sound a little facetious?

As for film, maybe it is a vinyl vs CD thing. I can't say that music from vinyl sounds any more pleasing to my ears than music from a CD, but I can say that if I look at a black and white print made with silver process from an Ilford film, it looks much nicer to me than the digitally captured and printed equivalent. And that's not just in my head. It's in the grain and it's in the tonal range. And until compact digitals have more manual control and can handle noise at higher ISOs much better than they do currently, old film cameras will be much more flexible and a better option for those who can't afford a DSLR but want more control over their image. So yes, I would very much like to see film remain available and affordable.

For me it's a bit like saying "As of next year no-one will make paintbrushes, the cost of paint will go way up and you won't be able to find anyone who makes it anyway. But hey, that's business, and who cares because paint is old technology and the images you can make with a computer and tablet look just as good."

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Yes, we can only hope that the reduction in cost will come soon enough to save the MF camera manufacturers. I have no idea whether it can or can't.

I don't know why you think that, but Blad is not doing bad.

Their 16 megapixel back that fits the 500 series cameras is "only" 10 grand. There is LOTS of them sold and it's not a huge price to pay if you're a working pro to transition to digital... heck - I'm a hobbyist student and I've spent about 8 grand on equipment in the last 2 years... and keep spending.

As far as business goes, blads are not expensive. You can get a top of the line, newest, double everything blads for 100K. If you compare it to other businesses investments, it's peanuts.

Not to mention, the prices keep coming down. Give it 5-10 years and the camera prices will settle to what they used to be. We're seeing it now with the consumer SLRs. The digital rebels cost the same what the film rebels used to. The full frame is catching up too - 1V used to cost 2K and now the 5D is around 2500.

In 10 years, the same thing will happen to the MF market. It has to - there is no more demand for cameras now than there was back in the beginning of 90s. We'll just have to wait out the "boom" and be patient.

(Actually, I'll be patient and you should upgrade your bodies everytime something new comes out. This will give them more money for research)

 

[DocFrankenstein]

And I beleive Hassy film backs and accessories cost about as much as the H lineup is right now.

 

[fmw]

Doc, I realize they are doing fine. So is Mamiya. But their sales are declining like crazy. Hassys have always been expensive but the digital ones are REALLY expensive. That just cuts out more and more of the market. It cuts out virtually all the consumer market (the largest part) except for the wealthy. The pro market is too small to support a medium format camera manufacturer.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

My post does stem from assumption that Hassy was never big with the amateurs. Maybe I got the wrong impression somewhere.

I just thought that at least from the late 70s and onward, it was mostly 35mm for amateurs and the blad for the pros. I might be wrong though

 

[Tiberius]

This is one of the more depressing threads I've read. Digital file storage seems so potentially corruptible. Yes, negatives can also get destroyed, but still, there's something terrifying about how a digital file can be gone in a nanosecond if something isn't exactly right. My day job is in radio, and we were completely knocked off line the other day by a ten-second power outage.

It's not hard at all (or even that expensive, with current HD prices) to back up files, you know.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Don’t have much to add this debate. Other that I agree with the article, but I do think Sony could become #1 consumer DSLR maker.

As for MF I think it a dead market. How many wedding photographers are going to shoot a 10k plus D-Hassy over a 3k plus Canon 5D and make profit? Yes D-MF will be better but not 7k better. The dollars speak for them self.

 

[mysteryscribe]

To jeffs post I can add only 7k will buy a lot of beer..

 

[fmw]

The archiving issue is interesting and a little worrisome. Some people believe that we are archiving things on media that won't be readable by future equipment. I've already had problems with CD-RW. I'm about to invest in a NAS RAID to handle the archiving. But hard drives not only can but all evenually do fail. So I guess I'll buy at least one extra drive for the RAID. When one fails, I'll replace it and then find something to back it up - and something to back up the backup. It's a little scary.

 

[Alex_B]

the only working archives are living archives ... not CD or DVD, but Harddrives + harddrive backup which are replaced
every couple of years by the new standards ...

and as mentioned. this is becoming cheaper and cheaper.

 

[Jeff Canes]

To jeffs post I can add only 7k will buy a lot of beer..

but i'm not a beer drinker

 

[Digital Matt]

As for MF I think it a dead market. How many wedding photographers are going to shoot a 10k plus D-Hassy over a 3k plus Canon 5D and make profit? Yes D-MF will be better but not 7k better. The dollars speak for them self.

Are wedding photographers the only working pro's out there anymore?

What about commercial and fashion photography? Medium format digital is very dominant in these categories.

 

[Alex_B]

What about commercial and fashion photography? Medium format digital is very dominant in these categories.

well, since those are the categories where the real money is

In Pro-Fashion it is almost MF only ... as it is with Playboy and Penthouse

 

[ThomThomsk]

As for film, maybe it is a vinyl vs CD thing. I can't say that music from vinyl sounds any more pleasing to my ears than music from a CD, but I can say that if I look at a black and white print made with silver process from an Ilford film, it looks much nicer to me than the digitally captured and printed equivalent. And that's not just in my head. It's in the grain and it's in the tonal range.

Nor in my head, which is why I sold my dSLR and bought film equipment again. This kind of thread comes up from time to time, and for film users who want to believe that the magic of analogue photography will always be with us, they can be depressing. So, here is one quantified, non-controversial piece of information from which we can take some encouragement.

Ilford went through a financial restructuring a while back (i.e. its management bought it out of an insolvency procedure which allowed the business to dump £10 million of debt). They published their first set of accounts since then earlier this year, and they showed a net profit of £5 million (that's around $US 10 million) for the first year of trading. Now, the new management at Ilford said from the start that the company would be the last man standing in b&w film, but talk is cheap, and one year's results don't tell us anything about how the world will look next year ($2 = £1, that doesn't help), or in 5 or 10 years, but it's a good start. And my freezer can hold a lot of FP4+ if everything does go pear shaped.

Thom