Jump to content

Why are the film cameras not selling?


Ian Rance

Recommended Posts

<p>When I look online at the eBay auction site I see stacks of lovely film cameras that are not selling. There is not even ONE bid for lovely cameras that are in the box and priced under $5. Cameras that just a few years ago you would have had to spend a weeks wages on are now available to you for the price of a pint of beer. It depresses me it really does. I know that since digital cameras arrived some prefer the convenience, but a nice 35mm or APS compact has a place in everyone's pocket I think.</p>

<p>I have reached the point where I almost dare not look what is available on there as the criminal low prices and no bids at all saddens me. I ended up bidding on many items because they were so nice and no one else had placed a bid. I felf sorry for the seller listing something so nice yet there was no interest in the item. I have ended up with quite a few items - and some that were only a dream for me to own 20 years ago. New in the box Pentax Zoom compacts, Canon APS compacts that have their leather pouch and instructions and loads of bits for the Kodak Retina system. I was the only bidder on a mint Retina Reflex that in today's money would be over $1000.</p>

<p>So, do take a look at some of the nice items not selling every day and don't just dismiss them because they are not the latest item on the shelf. Many of these cameras will earn a place in your kit bag after you have tried them and you may even find some of them are loyal photographic companions on your outings.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>.</p>

<p>Not much market for horse-drawn carriages nor buggy whips, either.</p>

<p>Hey, film cameras are not selling because everyone already has one or more on the shelf, in the closet, somewhere, unused. Who needs more?</p>

<p>More important than your inquiry about the gear, have YOU looked at film processing services lately -- such as at the minimum wage, minimum training staff and conditions at the front of every drug store and discount store to see what these fine cameras will have to go through to get the FILM developed, scanned, and printed. Film processing services are JUNK, expensive, and offer us no control over quality choices. The cameras always depended on FILM, and film services are really a crap shoot, and an ongoing expense even when we find a good subcontractor. No one wants film cameras because they require FILM, and therefore force us to loose all control over our own photography.</p>

<p>So redirect your inquiry to FILM and why no one wants FILM any more.</p>

<p>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ian, I think I have part of the answer. I also love film and shoot landscapes exclusively with it although I also use digital for family stuff as it's convenient. When I see that I now have to fork out 7 Euros for developing a 120 roll of Velvia, I understand this pushes people more into using digital!<br>

It's the foreverending game of offer and demand. IT's a shame though as I would have thought many labs would have got the film lab investment back after all those years and just decide to keep them on for a low price. Sadly, it isn't so.<br>

That, to me, is one of the reason why film cameras are on sale, and it's become a niche, few people are going to spend 5 quid into an object when they know it's going to cost them 7 quid to process slides.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Peter - there are still some good pro shops around. It costs a bit more, but any color film that I shoot goes through a dip 'n dunk process. It always looks great. I process my own B&W film myself. And to think that film forces a loss of control is silly. I don't process my own color, but I can push or pull process. And B&W offers incredible control. I shoot digital for sports. But I can't get the same results from digital that I get from large format - or at least I can't afford a digital back that will give me the same result.</p>

<p>People seem to think digital is cheaper. Yes, the marginal cost is lower, but the up-front costs are fairly high. And you need a good backup plan because digital storage will fail.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Not much market for horse-drawn carriages nor buggy whips, either."</p>

<p>Peter, I think this is because the car has made the use of such modes of transport unduly dangerous. They are still popular in rural areas where traffic is light.</p>

<p>Concerning film, I drop my rolls off at my local lab and they are great to talk to and work to a good standard. My slide films are also dealt with in a swift and reliable manner - even those sent to the USA (Dwaynes).</p>

<p>Perhaps then it is not the cameras, or film but the machine operators that are at fault. Funny isn't it - if we have a builder or mechanic that does a bad job they are soon out of business and shown up for the frauds they are, but with photography it seems that we prefer to spend on expensive gear to circumnavigate the real problem - that of shoddy workmanship in our D&P shops. Apathy perhaps?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Don't get me wrong, I love film cameras and film. I have about 20 film cameras, ranging over 35mm and roll film, rangefinder and reflex, including some fine precision instruments. I have just 2 digital cameras. But the majority of the exposures I make these days are on the 2 digitals. I'm not going to analyse why because it doesn't matter. When I have a choice, I usually reach for digital. Does that answer your question?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am afraid I feel the same as you. I will never sell my old Nikons and lenses. They will have to go after I am gone.

 

Unfortunately, we live in a world of instant gratification where film just takes too long to be able to see your image. I remember many times

that the waiting to see that image, that I thought would be beautiful, was sometimes better and more gratifying than the final image itself (kind

of like sex). Much more care and expertise is needed when using film. This is why we now have so many more good - rather than great - photographers than in the days of film. You can shoot hundreds of shots and instantly discard them without thinking twice why they were bad.

 

I remember going out for a day of shooting (on a 35mm day) and shooting 2 or 3 rolls of film and hoping for 3 or 4 really good keepers. I would

carefully go over all the frames to see what I had done wrong or what I could have done to make the shot more to my liking. Now, I often

discard immediately without much thought. I like to think that I am older and can judge in an instant what to keep and what not to keep. If I

were shooting film I probably would be more careful with each shot and give the results more thought.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Brian, I understand that digital is popular - and I have no wish on this thread to be disparaging to the digital format, but I still strongly feel that many people are not giving film and film gear the respect it deserves. It is dismissed time and time again when digital is mentioned, but for many users I still feel that film is the better choice. The amount of ropey JPEG's I have shown to me from once in a lifetime holidays is more than I can count. These consumers would have done far better to take a fixed lens quality 35mm compact. Several of my trips have been made with a compact camera from the early 80's with no zoom, but the quality of the photos shines through with enlargements and several have been published. I just wished that film gear was looked at as a valid item and not some relic to be laughed out of the house.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I stopped using film for serious photography when the quality of printing went downhill. It is as Peter said, most places do a very poor job with film, and they scan it anyway (digital workflow). So you end up with a piss-poor print of a poor scan of your great film negative/slide. The pro labs that do a better job have become rare and highly expensive, while I can excellent, professional prints from digital at very reasonable costs (even on metallic or silk paper).</p>

<p>Even b/w has become so expensive that I only shoot it very rarely.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>People are buying film cameras, but the cost of the film (and the crappy processing) as others stated above are the main culprits. I know some people are still developing their own rolls, but I have long since dismantled my processing gear. I just don't shoot film enough to make it worth my while, and the ease, control, and instant gratification of digital makes it an easy winner. I can take a photo in the Middle East and complete the PP on the flight home. Can't do that with film.</p>

<p>However, I do sometimes get tempted with a new film camera purchase, but always in 120 and not 35mm. I was in a local camera store just yesterday to buy a ballhead and I *almost* bought a Fuji 670 that had just come in from a seller. What a beautifully simple MF rangefinder...no such beast exists in the digital world which is why I was tempted, until I saw the price of course! Ouch...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sure, if you want to believe that film cameras are not selling because the processing of film is too expensive - go ahead. The truth is though, that digital for the majority of folks out there is very convinient and easy! Take a shot, look at it on the LCD of the camera - oh, looks good, Mom, look what a great shot - and then nothing ever happens with that shot because they've seen it on the LCD and there is no need to print it. Truth be told, 90% of the population does not print any pictures any more - it is now being viewed as an unnecessary expense.</p>

<p>Amongst the more serious photographers, digital quality has surpassed 35mm and even 645 formats - I know we can debate about this until the cows come home, but for me, at least, that is the case (and I have my own darkroom and Nikon 9000 scanner). Unless you go up to 6x7, 6x9 or Large Format, you will be hard pressed to get anything higher quality than the FF digital SLRs will give you. One additional point is that I have full control over a digital file whereas a negative or a slide needs tons of work to get it printed right.</p>

<p>So, it is simple, the reason film cameras are not selling anymore, is because nobody wants them. Digital rules these days (runs and takes cover............)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ian,</p>

<p><em>"Funny isn't it - if we have a builder or mechanic that does a bad job they are soon out of business and shown up for the frauds they are, but with photography it seems that we prefer to spend on expensive gear to circumnavigate the real problem - that of shoddy workmanship in our D&P shops. Apathy perhaps?"</em></p>

<p>It's more complicated than that. As others have said here, for best results go to a good pro lab. Drug/discount store one-hour labs cater to a mass consumer base, not a pro consumer base. And they stay in business for years and years because the mass market consumers don't know they are getting sub-standard work. They took photos, got a print back, end of story for them. Everybody is happy. So, if we understand their business model and take alternate steps for our more serious work, we don't need to be overly concerned about what goes on in the mass consumer product world.</p>

<p>Will</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ian, I share your sentiment and have also taken advantage of the low prices - Zeiss Ikon, Nikon F801, a couple of fixed-lens compacts and even a Polaroid Spectra. These things are mechanical marvels and (to me) worth having just for its educational value even if never used. It stirs the gear-wonk in me.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I just received a F100 from KEH yesterday..I can hardly wait to use it..I own a D200 and these two camera's will share the same lenses (except my single DX lens), flash and camera bags etc..A couple things that became apparent immediately was the camera sounds like a camera when I snap of the shutter and the viewfinder is gigantic..For me photography is a hobby, something to do that is fun and something that will take me places on my free time..Film and digital are both fun...I plan on hitting the photo trail this Friday morning and burn some film...I shot film for 40 years and digital for 2 and now I am going to shoot both from here on out. Plus I miss having the little cannisters around. To bad they don't make them from tin like the old days.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>.</p>

<p>Great discussion, everyone -- very provocative!</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>Olivier asked: Peter - who says no one wants FILM any more?</em> ..."</p>

<p>Hi Oliver. I said it. But I was wrong. Actually, I want film, and so do many others. Our problem with film is twofold. <br />1 - it is not vegan/vegetarian and so it is counter to our respect for the dignity of the life of others, and<br />2 - developing C41 especially puts our latent images at the mercy of, well, at least people outside our control, at worst, careless idiots. But even black and white film requires trusting the chemistry of others. And then -- tah-dah -- our precious latent image is no more.</p>

<p>Compare this to digital Raw capture - no animals have to die, and we keep the latent image forever for redevelopment over and over and over at our own whim and total control.</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>Robert wrote: there are still some good pro shops ... always looks great ... to think that film forces a loss of control is silly</em> ..."</p>

<p>Don't confuse "looks" with "control". I'm glad you're happy with the services others provide. I'm not. I'm thinking of damaged film, and lost film. How do you control that after the fact?</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>Robert wrote: I can't get the same results from digital that I get from large format</em> ..."</p>

<p>So ... you want digital help? ;-)</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>Ian wrote: horse-drawn carriages ... are still popular in rural areas where traffic is light</em> ..."</p>

<p>Excuse my myopia and urban centricity. Of course there are places where the car is not king and walking or bicycling is not enough. However, unrelated to film, horse-drawn anything is not very respectful of animals, though. At least cars use dead animals, I guess.</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>Mark wrote: a world of instant gratification where film just takes too long to be able to see your image</em> ..."</p>

<p>Actually, I do not look at my digital images instantly -- in-camera or even same day on computer. I often have to wait days to get the chance to download and organize and view my captures. Funny, with film, I'd wait at the lab for the results, I was so impatient. With digital, I have no worries, so I'm much more patient. Go figure.</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>Additional thought: film cameras sell poorly, cheaply, or not at all, also because the camera type is not marketed to newbies anymore, so the market of "new film camera purchasers" is no more. And, as said, old camera purchasers who already know the features and benefits of film cameras already have theirs. Collectors are all that's left, bell curve wise.</p>

<p>Note that the word "film" doesn't even appear on Kodak's web site front page! =8^o <a href="http://www.kodak.com/">http://www.kodak.com/</a></p>

<p>That being said, there may occasionally and perennially be some newbies teased by photography course teachers who mention the newest scanner-ready film, and new Kodak advertisements for Ektar, but I cannot even find Ektar on Kodak's web site ( <a href="http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=3316/7010/6994&pq-locale=en_US">http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=3316/7010/6994&pq-locale=en_US</a> ) ! If they do not think very much of it, why should we? And anyway, any new film photographers will only be a small bump in the bell curve, a blip, a trickle of demand.</p>

<p>Fuji at least puts a web link in their film ad in the magazines. Kodak has none in site or on site? Here from Outdoor Photographer magazine (left -- <a href="http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/">http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/</a> ) and Rangefinder Magazine (right -- <a href="http://www.rangfindermag.com/">http://www.rangfindermag.com/</a> ):<br /><a href="http://i40.tinypic.com/mh8unm.jpg">http://i40.tinypic.com/mh8unm.jpg</a><br /><img src="http://i40.tinypic.com/mh8unm.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="482" /></p>

<p>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you all for the answers - they are most interesting to me. I am glad this did not turn into a digital vs film thread - as I like both I do not want that.</p>

<p>Just a few more thoughts from me now. One of the things that does irritate me is that film is now called "alternative" and "analog". These words compound the thought that film is for those eccentrics and arty-types that rent studio flats and don't wash. Although I love taking photos and need no excuse to bring along my camera I get the feeling that I am strictly a "mass consumer" that Will speaks of above.<br>

Although I make every effort to take interesting, sharp and well composed photos, after the roll is finished I drop it into the 1-hour shop and go an have a hot chocolate with my family whild they burn it onto disk and print my 8x12's. I dislike sitting for any extended time in front of a computer twiddling with my photos as I have found time seems to go oh so quickly whilst I adust this and that and tinker with my images. I made the decision to enjoy more time outdoors with my camera and with my family, and whilst the quality of my images may suffer a little, I think that the time that I have NOT spent in front of my monitor is a fair swap.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>.</p>

<p>Hmm ... in reading the left half and right half of that 700 pixel version of those Kodak and Fuji advertisements ( <a rel="nofollow" href="http://i40.tinypic.com/mh8unm.jpg" target="_blank">http://i40.tinypic.com/mh8unm.jpg</a> ), I now see why Kodak is so failure prone. </p>

<p>Kodak's ad only said "grain", a technical feature and problem with film.</p>

<p>Fuji's ad said "color" and "detail", benefits customers want. </p>

<p>Only after I revisited the pages do I see that Kodak, almost as an after thought, suggests at the bottom that they offer "detail" and "saturation", but again, the word "saturation" is a technical feature.</p>

<p>Fuji's "color" is a resulting benefit. </p>

<p>Kodak sells (or fails to sell) <strong>features</strong>; Fuji sells <strong>benefits</strong>.</p>

<p>To reiterate and change my previous comment:</p>

<p><em>I do not want FILM (a feature). I want the RESULTS of film (the benefit), which supports getting to the image I imagine.</em></p>

<p>Digital Raw capture beats film at supporting my total goal. </p>

<p>Both digital Raw capture and film scans end up in my computer for editing and printing out to computer-connected printers. </p>

<p>Start with film and I have:<br>

- a tough workflow<br>

- great loss of control<br>

- total loss of my original latent image.</p>

<p>Start with digital Raw capture and I have<br>

- easy workflow,<br>

- total control,<br>

- preservation of my original latent image.</p>

<p>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>.</p>

<p>Ian,</p>

<p>You and I seem to have accomplished the same results via alternative paths -- you film, me digital. I do not spend hours in front of my computer screen, as free <a href="http://picasa.google.com/">http://picasa.google.com/</a> not only instantly shows us our captured images (Raw included) on a simple, inexpensive laptop computer, but Picasa also makes a slide show we can keep perpetually displaying as we walk about our home, or wherever we are staying. </p>

<p>Our printed photographs are either small and then hidden away in shoeboxes or albums, or large and hidden away in drawers and portfolios or a scant few make it to framing and display only when there is sufficient space and lighting to see them.</p>

<p>Our digitized photographs are in view 24 hours a day, even at night when I wander to the kitchen to refresh my glass of water, and I pass by the nice inexpensive portable computer showing a self-back-lit slide show of thousands of our images. It's always a pleasant surprise to find one's I've not seen in a while. Invariably, anyone of us passing by the perpetual slide show stops and watches for a while, then comments and shares renewed interest in places we have been, things we have seen. In fact, the two most recent trips were planned after seeing our older images come up on this computer, reminding ourselves, via this 24 hour everything slide show, what is most valuable to us, and where we really enjoy our vacating most.</p>

<p>So, round-about, the reason film cameras are not selling much, or for much, anymore is two fold:<br>

- collectors are the only market since digital replaced film.<br>

- eBay sellers do not romance their gear for it's collector's value.</p>

<p>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Peter - I do shoot digital, and I know how to edit digital files. But I can't afford a digital back that will produce 20x24 inch prints, and larger, that I'm happy with. As for control - most of my film work is B&W that I process myself. And I do, on occasion, make optical color prints. So you think that because I don't actually develop color film that I give up control!? I have an excellent pro lab - they can push and pull as I please. I'd probably process color myself, though, if I didn't have a good lad less than 1 mile from my house.</p>

<p>The economics of film are very good for low volume shooters. But most folks like the convenience of digital. And many folks aren't very picky. Walk through cubicles in almost any modern offices and you'll see inkjet prints that were made on copy paper.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I recently purchased two film camera on ebay, 1V and a 7E, my eos lens work great on them, now taking classes on developing black and white, sure wish no one had bid on those cameras or the other ones I tried first, I could have gotten them cheaper. I have a few digital cameras and I can not get my black and whites to match the beauty of the black and white film. That beauty is based on my interpretation, some one else certainly can see it differently. One film camera for me and one for my daughter.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>.</p>

<p>Sorry, Ian, but it is, after all, a digital versus film thread regardless of us thinking it's a thread about the wonders and craft of expensive film camera gear that was so valuable only moments ago.</p>

<p>Robert, I'm not arguing with you nor disagreeing with you. I just don't confuse <em>satisfaction</em> with things outside my control with thinking those things are <em>inside my control</em> just because I'm satisfied with the results. I'm glad you have a lab that meets your quality, speed, and price expectations. I have hundreds of labs nearby (there were thousands only a short time ago). Regardless, my film cameras are dormant and I ain't buying any more because digital Raw capture satisfies my input needs for new imaging, and film scanning satisfies my desire to bring my existing archives of film into the digital domain. </p>

<p>We're probably just coming from different comfort zones. I've been digital after capture for more than 15 years, and film capture just makes transfer to the digital domain all that much more difficult. You probably still enjoy, or don't mind subcontracting to, the chemical darkroom, so film capture is not an impediment to moving to the final result for you.</p>

<p>My comment, "... <em>So ... you want digital help? ;-)</em> ..." was pretty much answered by you -- <em>money</em> is what you'd need. I suggest that you seriously tally your film expenses and see if you're not already throwing away that money every year. For me, one vacation's expenses, film wise, justified switching to digital capture, and it's been virtually zero additional expenses since then. </p>

<p>Output wise, of course I'm spending more on ink and paper, but that's because I can! </p>

<p>Film workflow made our experience of photography rarefied; digital workflow makes it accessible.</p>

<p>There is no comparison save moving the decimal point three or four places between happiness minutes per dollar.</p>

<p>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I see stacks of lovely film cameras that are not selling.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is most likely because most people see cameras as a tool for making photographs and not an item to collect in quantity. I shoot professionally and personally, have four cameras and an iPhone, use two of those cameras and the iPhone for everything I shoot. Why would I buy another one? I can't see a reason to have a camera just to have it. I'd rather collect photography books than cameras.<br /> I don't know any photographers who spend their time on eBay looking for cameras. I guess the camera collector world is a separate entity.</p><p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I drop my rolls off at my local lab</p><p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Some of us were taught that great photographs come from managing the process all the way through. I learned to use the darkroom before I could shoot. I can't imagine have a "drop and run" approach to photography, why farm out half the process to an automated machine?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...