Whither the camera industry?

[Jeff Canes]

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.

Is that a large enough market to maintain MF? Personally I do not think so. Also as younger photographers work their way up in the world of commercial photography, they will bring with them the equipment they are conformable using.

Another thing to add to the debate is the sale levels of Canon & Nikon should let them develop cheaper manufacturing cost and new technologies quicker

 

[fmw]

I don't think there is any question that digital will put film out of business in the same way CD's put vinyl out of business - or at least turn it into a small specialty sideline. The question is whether Canon, Nikon and, perhaps, Sony and Matsu****a will put the medium and large format camera makers out of business. I doubt seriously that Ilford will be the last company standing in the b&w film business. It will likely be a Chinese company. I'll shoot Delta 100 as long as it is available and then I'll put the medium format system away for the duration.

I also doubt seriously that film will disappear completely. Vinyl certainly hasn't since the first CD's hit the market about 25 years ago. It will get expensive and people will have to work with it themselves. There won't be new equpment available to use it but it is likely to continue as a side line to digital photography for a long time to come.

Personally, I've never had a problem embracing digital technology. I did it with music and I did with photography. Not a problem. It works just fine.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I realized after all this talk that I have more than enough film laying about to last more than the amount of time I personally have left in photography sooooo... Who worry not me.

 

[Digital Matt]

Is that a large enough market to maintain MF? Personally I do not think so. Also as younger photographers work their way up in the world of commercial photography, they will bring with them the equipment they are conformable using.

I think it's a huge market. Advertising/marketing has got to be one of the largest industries in the world. Billions of dollars are spent yearly on advertising and so much of that money is spent in high quality stock photography, and commerical photographers hired to "sell" a product. Pick up any Vogue, InStyle, Elle, etc... 90% of the magazines are ads, and I'd be willing to bet that 75-80% of the photography is medium format digital, if not medium format film even. I seriously doubt the companies placing those ads are going to settle for 6mp photos. Even Canon advertises it's 1DS MKII as "finally, a magazine quality dslr". 16 mp is just the fringe of magazine quality.

 

[craig]

Interesting predictions. Not convinced that film will fall by the way side. I can see why they are not manufacturing film cameras any more.

Photography is in an uncomfortable position at this moment in time. Digi has brought convience and ease that a lot of us have never seen before. The camera industry is not withering. Just going through growing pains.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Fred that is a lot of questions & comments to answers with just one yes or no. I agree with most of that you said.

I think the future of film is mixed. B&W will survive because it seems to have already moved to the fine art & hobby market. Along with the easy developing and printing makes it possible for home processing. Color is a different question. My believe is that E6 has similar advantages to B&W. But I do not know of any manufactures other that Kodak & Fuji. The problem is with C41 and what effect the decline consumer films will have on the financing of color pro films? Time will tell but I don’t think it looks good.

To MF question my option is in time MF film will become what LF is today, B&W fine art and hobby. Also I think this will happen sooner that most people do. Is that good are bad who knows? As for MF-D replace MF film? I think that I have already expressed my option on that. IMO MF-D cost needs be cut 40%-60% to compete with DSLRs

One big problem I see with the decline of film maybe cost of film scanners rise.


Matt

I have a Hassy 500C/M and a Canon 1D MIIn. People are going to call me crazy :crazy: but I think the Canon is better in always. In fact I think it’s too good sometime.

-- Even Canon advertises it's 1DS MKII as "finally, a magazine quality dslr". 16 mp is just the fringe of magazine quality.

I assume that is compared to MF film. If that is so, when why buy a MF-D back

 

[JIP]

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."

Peruse a few issues of

http://http://www.bandwmag.com/current/index.html

and tell me film is the only medium for B+W photography. I used to think the same thing about digital B+W until I started to read it. There is some amazing B+W work being done with digital.

 

[JIP]

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."

Peruse a few issues of

http://http://www.bandwmag.com/current/index.html

and tell me film is the only medium for B+W photography. I used to think the same thing about digital B+W until I started to read it. There is some amazing B+W work being done with digital.

 

[Don Simon]

Ah, but I didn't say it was the only medium, just that I prefer it... digital can of course produce some great stuff. But... I find that in a darkroom I can make consistently good enlargements, while with digital I'm continually calibrating and profiling in an attempt to get black to look black. I just don't think most photo printers designed for home use are really designed for black & white... I like the grain... and although I agree there are situations where digital would be preferable even for black & white work, there remain situations where it wouldn't be... they're both good for different things and we should be able to use both. Ultimately you made the point yourself... film is not the only medium. They are not just an old and a new technology, they are different media. Film isn't the only medium. But neither is digital, and why should it be? Therefore in addition to shooting digital I will continue to buy and shoot film, to make my very small contribution to the companies who make it... otherwise prophesies like this are of the self-fulfilling variety.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Is that a large enough market to maintain MF? Personally I do not think so.

You do not think so?

The marketing, commercial and fashion is the major part of the photographic industry. It's where to top dollar is.

Also as younger photographers work their way up in the world of commercial photography, they will bring with them the equipment they are conformable using.

I'm sure I'd be pretty comfortable shooting with that 39mp hassy back. And I'm a young photogrpaher. :mrgreen:

As to the film vs digital - canon seems to be the only one who's not dropping their whole lineup. They just aren't developing anything new at the moment.

Velvia 50 is being introduced again. Should be available next year.

 

[fmw]

You do not think so?

The marketing, commercial and fashion is the major part of the photographic industry. It's where to top dollar is.



I'm sure I'd be pretty comfortable shooting with that 39mp hassy back. And I'm a young photogrpaher. :mrgreen:

As to the film vs digital - canon seems to be the only one who's not dropping their whole lineup. They just aren't developing anything new at the moment.

Velvia 50 is being introduced again. Should be available next year.

Commercial photographers of the sort that would buy a digital Hasselblad number in the 10's of thousands around the world. If every one of them bought a hasselblad that might be enough - maybe - just barely but I doubt it. Hasselblad won't survive without the volume it earned from film cameras. It just can't - not at those prices.

I'm willing to bet Canon will abandon film cameras pretty soon too. They are the largest camera maker in the world so their volume can justify production longer than other companies but not very long. Sales of film cameras are falling faster then ripe apples in a wind storm. I can't imagine anybody making 35mm film cameras within a couple of years. It's possible, I suppose, but not very likely. The question for me is still MF and LF cameras. It's hard to tell how large the amateur market might be for them.

Velvia 50? Well, that certainly is a plus. Nice to see that.

 

[Digital Matt]

The price of digital technology gets cheaper and cheaper, and at a certain point, the only way to go is up. Up in resolution, and up in sensor size. You can only cram so many megapixels into an area of 24x36mm. I think within 5-10 years, the amateur market will be full frame DSLRs for under $1000, and Digital MF cameras for under $5000. The highest megapixel MF sensors will still always command a high price to start, as does all technology when it first breaks, but the ones we see now, like the 39mp backs will come down, and the 22mp backs will start showing up under $5k. You tell me what pro photographer has not spent $5k or much more on their equipment? Even a basic wedding kit consisting of 2 bodies, 2 flashes, and a few lenses runs you more than that in todays prosumer 6mp market.

 

[Tiberius]

Depends. At the last wedding I was at, the Photographer was using a D70, 18-70, SB-800 Combo for the entire thing, and from what I could tell talking to the family afterwords they were rather happy with the results. Granted, this person was no doubt in the minority (at the other weddings I was at over the summer the Photo setup was often much more elaborate), but some survive on less.

 

[fmw]

The price of digital technology gets cheaper and cheaper, and at a certain point, the only way to go is up. Up in resolution, and up in sensor size. You can only cram so many megapixels into an area of 24x36mm. I think within 5-10 years, the amateur market will be full frame DSLRs for under $1000, and Digital MF cameras for under $5000. The highest megapixel MF sensors will still always command a high price to start, as does all technology when it first breaks, but the ones we see now, like the 39mp backs will come down, and the 22mp backs will start showing up under $5k. You tell me what pro photographer has not spent $5k or much more on their equipment? Even a basic wedding kit consisting of 2 bodies, 2 flashes, and a few lenses runs you more than that in todays prosumer 6mp market.

That's a sensible scenario. It could certainly go that way. I guess all my Nikkor DX lenses will become obselete. Sigh! Better start saving up.

 

[Digital Matt]

Depends. At the last wedding I was at, the Photographer was using a D70, 18-70, SB-800 Combo for the entire thing, and from what I could tell talking to the family afterwords they were rather happy with the results. Granted, this person was no doubt in the minority (at the other weddings I was at over the summer the Photo setup was often much more elaborate), but some survive on less.

I think that is definitely the minority. I saw a wedding photographer using a 10D, and his wife using a Digital Rebel, and that's all they had. One lens each. Not someone I would hire.