yog_sothoth Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>Film cameras are going down in price, but they are still selling. If you want to see depreciation, try selling a 3 megapixel camera from a few years ago. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverscape Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>shoot...show me those $5 cameras and I'll buy one. I keep getting outbid on the ones I want too. Sure, I've seen a lot of cheap plastic 35mm point and shoot cameras from the 1980's and 1990's that no one buys. But all the decent cameras always seem to go for high prices. I wanted to buy an Argus C-44, and there were 4 people bidding on it. And have you looked lately for a medium format camera? It's crazy. If I wanted to buy another Zeiss folding camera in good condtion, I probably would have to pay around $100 now at least. <br /><br />If "no one wants film cameras" then I must live in an alternate universe...because from what I'm seeing, it sure seems like a heck of a lot of people ARE buying them. I lost two auctions this week because I was outbid. I really wanted another Zeiss folding camera, but I just couldn't afford it. Even an Argus C3 ended up with 4 bids! (I already have enough C3's though anyway). But obviously people ARE buying film cameras. Maybe not the cheap plastic P&S cameras...but vintage manual cameras are suddenly becoming extremely popular right now. <br /><br />And then, think about it...if "no one" uses film anymore...then why is there a VERY active Classic Cameras and Film and Processing forums on Photo.net? Why are there film groups on Flickr? Heck, there are even classic cameras and film groups on MySpace. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>There are even 'Welcome to Filmtown' articles on Photo.net</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterblaise Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>.</p> <p>Hi Ross, I hope you are well. I saw Robert Frank's Americans here in DC and hated it, mostly because it was HISTORY photography in an ART museum and not in a HISTORY museum, so we missed the time to go over to the HISTORY museum to see the ART photography of Washington DC's previous generations of black studio photographers that was on display at the HISTORY museum. Another day. The book is better for me since I can study it. Mostly we were miffed once again that the museums don't "get" photography. There were no "artful" images in Frank's work, but outside of that, I think it's an enjoyable anthropological study ... if you're interested in HISTORY, not ART. My point is that so few people "get" photography -- it's too complex to sift the documentation aspects from the creative aspects, the artistic aspects from the technique aspects, the process aspects from the results aspects, and so on, so they don't even try. Can you imagine a show called "black and white sketches" and that's the ONLY criteria for inclusion?</p> <p>To every one -- I think film and film cameras will sell forever, just not at the peak we remember such a distressingly short time ago. My classics should go on the block to collectors, and they are well used and proven image catchers, but they depended on film. Make no mistake that THEY did not capture anything -- the film did. Not so with digital, where the sensor is integral.</p> <p>Look, after capture, what do we do with our latent images? </p> <p>THAT is the penultimate question.</p> <p>And digital capture is the overwhelming answer for low cost and high control. </p> <p>It's that simple.</p> <p>Once digitized, $200 (Brother) to $300 (HP) I can get an 17x11" to 19x13" color printer (the Brother COMES with a 17x11" SCANNER included!). For the same money I can get a nice used (or even new) computer to act as lightroom, and satisfactory software is open source and free. So, for $400 to $600 I can be on the way to in-house, total control photography print out for as long as I like the stuff, buying only CDs and ink and paper.</p> <p>But where do I get NEW images to feed this digital production <em>tour de fource</em> ?</p> <p>Again, for the same $200 to $300, I can get a new or used DSLR or swell compact digital, and not need to spend another penny for as much photography as I want as long as I want.</p> <p>Or I can buy some film and processing.</p> <p>And then buy some <em>more</em> film and processing.</p> <p>And then buy some <em>more</em> film and processing.</p> <p>THAT is why it appears that film camera sales have all but disappeared -- no one wants an endless expense when digital capture offers to stop the loss with one purchase.</p> <p>However, on photo.net, of course, being a camera gear-head meeting place, film cameras will probably be discussed forever. That's fine, and as it should be. But it is a rarefied corner of the photography marketplace, a marketplace dominated by:</p> <p>- digital camera phones mostly,</p> <p>- digital compact cameras second most, and</p> <p>- digital interchangeable lens cameras <em>waay</em> down the list.</p> <p>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>HI Peter, I have not seen you around the cyber world for a long time...You were all film and Minolta back then..well actually we both were..These days I am shooting a D200 which I think is really great and I have a F100 that I just bought. That is all the camera's I own...Being a hobbyist I am not really interested in the most efficiency or the easiest work flow..or even the cheapest price necessarily..However I cannot afford a new DSLR camera (D700).. My goals are to get out of the house for some amount of time. To take pictures of the places I go and to enjoy photography..I love to hang out along the coast line of Big Sur or a trip to Yosemite with my camera and tripod. A print is still my end goal. Shooting the F100 is a fun thing to do for me..From looking at the new camera's coming out I am wondering if the DSLR world is going to become a Camcorder world with high pixel capture. I probably will give up on digital capture at that point or at least on new stuff..My D200 is probably good for many years anyway and eventually a D700 will fall into my price range. On the Art History thing I have a membership to the Museum of Modern Arts, San Francisco and am currently taking a class on early Art History. I always take a tour through whatever photography they are displaying and enjoy it. I am definately interested in this historical work (Americas) but I also enjoy viewing other art methods. A few months ago they had a special exhibit of "Frieda Kahlo" that I went to see with my daughter (Art major at Berkely) and was really jazzed to view it..I was able to really see inside Frieda through her work and with the help of my daughter who is better than a personal tour guide.<br> Currently I am taking a Art History class and part of the assignments are to wander around some museums. Since I have a membership to The Museum of Modern Arts, San Francisco it makes since to go there..but I visit the DeYoung museum also, just not as frequently. I always visit whatever photography they are showing. However my next trip will be to write a paper on an art project older than 1300 BCE.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterblaise Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>.</p> <p>Well, Ross, there you have it. The <em><strong>gear</strong> </em> -- a great magnet for discussions here at photo.net -- finally gives way to the reason for the gear: <em><strong>the results</strong> </em> . Yes, the results are all we are after. Great that you are exploring other's creative expressions while you still have a chance to create your own. Yes, I also have family members who bring their studiousness to museum tours -- apparently an additional reason to have kids: "<em>Kid, go out and learn about this stuff, come back, and tell me all about it</em> !". Good for you!</p> <p>Me? I tend to be a photographic documentarian for my life experiences, with an eye toward composition. Some of it is pleasant and stands on it's own, and I have had strong responses from people who want one image or another in their home for continued contemplation -- though I cannot predict which image of mine will elicit such a personal response. I have over 40,000 pictures to sort through. Yet, today I am challenged by <strong>Andrzej Dragan</strong> who apparently has world renown with "only" a few hundred total pictures to his credit, see <em>PhotoLife</em> magazine March 2009 (out of Canada):</p> <p>http://www.photolife.com/por.php?id=479</p> <p>For me, this is the quintessential difference between thousands of pictures with no words from the photographer, <em>versus</em> one picture from the photographer with thousands of thoughts from the viewer.</p> <blockquote> <p>PS - I never left public photography discussions, I just changed venues, broadened my scope, hopefully for the better. Myopia is a severe compromise and challenge for a photographer! Here, Flickr, BetterPhoto, Dyxum, Yahoogroups (taking over <em>Manual Minolta</em> and setting it free was a thrill!) and so on -- there are great people everywhere. Gotta love the Internet!</p> </blockquote> <p>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 It is all about supply and demand. For years I had been looking for a copy of the book <I> A Stillness at Appomattox.</I> When I joined eBay eleven years a go, I did a search and found one copy. After a bidding war I got it for $24. Today I can do a search and find over a dozen copies listed with starting bids of $1 and no bids. <P> Same thing for cameras. About ten years ago I did a search for Minolta XG-1 and found maybe two or three listed. I got one for around $75. Today there are 33 of them listed. People are switching to digital and what do they do with their old film cameras? Years ago an old camera would go in the closet, no one ever throws away an old camera, but now they can list it on eBay. The market is getting flooded with more sellers than buyers. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Yes, the results are all we are after.</p> </blockquote> <p>Perhaps for you. I enjoy the whole process of film development and printing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>Maybe because no one wants film anymore? (and by no one, I mean 99% of people who buy cameras)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterblaise Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>.</p> <p>Earlier: "... <em>Steve wrote: I enjoy the whole process of film development and printing</em> ..."</p> <p>Oh yes, and I enjoy playing with computer programs, migrating thousands of files and renaming them as we speak. BUT, this makes a niche market, not a strong mainstream market. </p> <p>It just keeps discussion groups and hobbyist shops busy. </p> <p>Hence the OP opening post point about diminutive prices for arcane film camera gear that was so expensive only a short time ago. </p> <p>I think we understand and appreciate that <strong>we</strong> still <em>love</em> the stuff. It's just sad that the "<strong>we</strong> " in that sentence are such a small group after all.</p> <p>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomscott Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Maybe because no one wants film anymore? (and by no one, I mean 99% of people who buy cameras)</p> </blockquote> <p>Do you have some research to back that up or, is it just your opinion? Oh well I guess im just a One percenter.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Maybe because no one wants film anymore? (and by no one, I mean 99% of people who buy cameras)</p> <p>Pretty sure 1% of the people taking photo's are not keeping Kodak, Fuji and the other dozen makers of film in business. So your statement is clearly WRONG.</p> </blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Pretty sure 1% of the people taking photo's are not keeping Kodak, Fuji and the other dozen makers of film in business.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, that 1% (or whatever percentage it really is) is certainly keeping Ilford in business.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>85% of statistics are made up by the way. <br /> <br /> Ok enough tongue in cheek.... Seriously, the consumer market is basically completely digital at this point, the prosumer/enthusiest market is buying 50D's and D90's with a few collectors and die-hard film guys thrown in (probably the bulk of todays film users are enthusiests), and the professional market is basically completely digital with only a small number of (primarily landscape or high fashion) photogs using film of any format.<br> People don't buy film because it's expensive, inconvienient, and for the professional market, just not fiscally reasonable for most work.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luca_stramare2 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>And Rollei as well, which has taken over former Agfa paper, chemistry, B&W and professional color film.e<br> I agree with the ones who state that the main reason why film cameras do not sell is because most of the people do not need another one. And people whi start taking pictures nowadays go with digital and consider film something of the past. On the other side the used film camera market is quite strange. It is like used car market, some models do not sell at all, some models sell at a very low price and some still sell at high figures. Here a mint Nikon FM3 sells for a little less than when it was new. Why? because there is still a market for a Nikon manual camera like this. There is also a market for the FM/FM2. The same applies for the latest good AF ones, the F80 and the F100, if the price is reasonable, while the former consumer autofocus bodies do not sell or sell in the 50$ range. The same applies for Canon, while it is by far more difficult to sell Fujica, Minolta and Pentax stuff, where the offer is much higher than the demand. I was in search of a Nikon 35 TI and it was a real fight to get one. <br> Yes, I still shoot slide film. I enjoy doing it and I like to handle my rolls to a professional lab and have them taking care of the rest, like in the old Kodak advertisement. For me photography is more in the process of composition and exposure than in sitting at the computer, and I like the physical process of handling my slides. But I understand that for this process I won't need a new camera if my current one is still working fine, hence I am no good business for people selling used stuff.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_welsh Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>Like, Curtis, I guess I am also a 1 percenter. And, I'm not talking about the bike world. Peter, you mentioned about :<br> "Or I can buy some film and processing.<br> And then buy some <em>more</em> film and processing.<br> And then buy some <em>more</em> film and processing."<br> I found that to true about buying ink cartridges.<br> Make a few prints and buy some more ink<br> Make a few prints and buy some more ink.............</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luca_stramare2 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>Jack... you could say the same with everything, either film or digital. There is always a missing piece of equipment between you and a great picture ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
railphotog Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>I follow the local online "flea market" called Kijiji. It's owned by eBay and allows people to buy and sell things locally - cash and in person. And it's free. I've sold some digital cameras and bought a few lenses for a whole lot less that I would have paid retail.<br> Having said that, I see a continual listing of film cameras on my city site and three other area cities. Don't know if they are actually able to sell them, but there are always some for sale. Of course the sellers are basing their prices on what the gear originally cost, and most of the prices seem to be a way out of line to me anyway. <br> I sold all of my film cameras in the past several years, but I used eBay as Kijiji wasn't around at the time. Glad I was able to sell them when I could, as the current flooded market doesn't seem to be very promising. I personally have no need nor desire to use film cameras, I use the three digital ones I have all the time nowadays. When I first got into digital, I started shooting a whole lot more than I did with my film cameras. Many of the images I take never get out of my computer, but I'm having fun taking them for free.<br> I think nothing of shooting a hundred or so shots at a time trying to capture hummingbirds in our backyard (in the summer of course!), but if I was using film I doubt if I'd take a dozen or so.<br> So to me it's fairly obvious why film cameras aren't selling - digital is better and is taking over!</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_welsh Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>Luca, my point was that printing 8x10 prints with an inkjet printer, the printer goes through the ink cartridges very quickly. While, I can print far more the old fashion wet way with far less money. So, while processing film can be costly so can the digital way. It costs about $120.00 (or more) to buy the 6 cartridges that my printer needs. True, digital doesn't have the film costs, BUT, it does have it's own.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p>85% of statistics are made up by the way.</p> </blockquote> <p>From a Dilbert cartoon:</p> <p>DILBERT: I didn't have any accurate numbers so I just made this one up. Studies have shown that accurate numbers aren't any more useful than the ones you make up.</p> <p>CO-WORKER: How many studies showed that?</p> <p>DILBERT: Eighty seven.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>I like the argument that nobody wants to buy film cameras because the market mostly consists of people who have more film cameras than they need trying to sell them to other people is exactly the same position. </p> <p>The small minority who now shoot film in any volume cannot possibly buy up all the film cameras no longer used by the people who don't. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick j dempsey Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p>More film and more processing...</p> </blockquote> <p>You ever done SERIOUS printing at home? Yes it's cheap to print out a few prints every now and then... but it's still cheaper to do that at a lab... and get better results on better paper. Ink and paper for printing at home gets very very very expensive very quickly. I worked in a small office and we printed out lots of things like covers for binders for presentations. We could print about 20 covers out before running out of ink. $60 later, more ink and another 20 covers. We only needed 50 covers. 50. That's two rolls of film, and it cost the office over $200 in ink and paper just to print 50 covers. We couldn't get them copied at a professional off-set printer because they had a minimum order of several hundred, and Kinkos doesn't do anywhere near the quality we needed. Sure, if you are printing at 100dpi, on low quality, you can make hundreds of prints.... but to get anywhere even close to photographic quality, it uses a TON of ink... especially if there are lots of blacks in the image. Labs are able to absorb the cost of materials on sales of key-chains and overpriced photo albums. So if you are printing at home, really the only business you are supporting is the really srcewed up business of overpriced PROPRIETARY ink and papers. Rediculous.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 <p>After recently importing my library of photos from Italy shot several years ago on my E995 into Aperture and being sorely disappointed by the limitations of using files from what was considered a very good camera at the time, I think next time I go on a trip I'm going to shoot some film in addition to or instead of DSLR. If I'd shot film I could have rescanned the negatives at 12MP with excellent color, instead I'm stuck with crappy 2-3MP JPGs. I don't know what the equivalent experience will be in 2015 but I'd bet anything I'd rather have negatives then than 10MP, 12 bit RAW files.</p> <p>I recently scanned my parents' old slides that had been sitting in a box since the 1970s, cleaned them up, did a bit of color voodoo and sent them to be printed at the shop down the street, and they came out... not better than my DSLR shots (the slides had not been stored well and were in poor condition) but still really good, better than most digital. I gave my mother the prints and she actually wept with joy. I don't know if my digital files will be that useful in 30 years.</p> <p>BTW, I'm becoming more and more convinced that inkjet is dead as a way of doing printing of good 4x6 sets. For 19 cents each the shop down the street does 4x6 on glossy Fuji paper that beats the crap out of anything I can get from an inkjet (even using a gloss cartridge) at 50 cents a sheet in materials, and they're done in an hour or two while I drink coffee and read a book instead of minding the printer. But now they're offering a "giclee" service they sell as "archival" and charge a lot more for, which seems almost completely pointless to me. Isn't "giclee" French for "inkjet"?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_ragalie Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 <p>I've bought four great fixed lens rangefinders this year for a total of $200 on ebay. I just like the feel of those cameras, and I feel right walking around with them. Are they convenient? No. But neither are LP records and cooking from scratch, which I've found to be rewarding time wasters. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luca_stramare2 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 <blockquote> <p>digital is better and is taking over!</p> </blockquote> <p>Who cares? The day in which shooting digital will give me the same level of personal satisfaction I have when I fiddle with a 100% mechanical camera or when I bring home a box of slides, spread them on the lightbox and look for my loupe and my notepad, then I'd move to digital. Life is not a matter of megapixels, I know people that enjoy driving cars from the 50s, 60s and 70s, even if modern ones are better and have taken over...<br> But this is the usual digital vs. film war. To me the matter why used film cameras do not sell is simple: number are small and needs are met. No matter the amount of digital vs. film debate, there still are out there some people shooting film. Those people already have a camera, most likely more than one, hence they have no need to buy another and another and another. Film is not like digital, in which one needs to replace the camera every some years to keep pace with technology, manual film cameras reached the peak in the 80s, and electronic film cameras did at the turn of the century. I bought my FM2 new back in the '80s and I am still using it 20+years after. I bought another one that I am keeping as a spare because I cannot live without a FM2. I bought an F100 when my F90x died of use and abuse and an F80 when I found it new sitting on the shelf of a camera store since years. I am done with equipment, now the only thing I buy is film and development. Unless one of my cameras dies (touch wood) and it is not worth fixing, I won't buy another and another...<br> All the film users I know are in the same situation, they have the equipment they need. So the answer for me is "film cameras don't sell because the number of people shooting film is small and almost all of them already have all the equipment they need to practice their hobby.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now