Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Kodak! What are you going to do?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Kodak! What are you going to do? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Kodak! What are you going to do?

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-12-2013 06:37 PM

I am curious about Bobby's point: is the camera business really that bad? If anything, I would expect that digital would result in more camera bodies being sold as technology improves. A quality film camera (and lenses) is basically a lifetime investment, and fifty-year-old cameras are still in daily use today. With the same lenses and film, a 1950s Nikon F will take pictures that are just as good as those taken with a modern F6. By contrast, digital necessitates regular upgrades (is anyone regularly using even a ten-year-old digital camera?). I would think that camera body sales have significantly increased since digital cameras became a common thing, but maybe not.

As for Kodak--the company has been mismanaged for decades and has still been able to produce some good products and have at least some divisions (including the Motion Picture division) that are still profitable. I hope that they will survive without another bankruptcy or (worse) a bail-out.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 12-12-2013 09:30 PM

Scott
I am not a professional photographer by any stretch of the imagination, and my camera often goes weeks without use. However, my Sony A200 DSLR is about 7 years old and it's working just as good today as it was the day it was purchased - maybe even better since I know how to use.

I have considered purchasing a new body, but only because I purchased the lowest end model and I was looking for more features. If I do upgrade, it will likely be to a used body which is a couple years newer. At this point any new body I purchase will be the result rather than need.

One thought about the cost of DSLRs vs. film cameras. Would the savings in consumables over a 10 year period be fairly comparable to the cost a new camera body? Looking at the current line of Sony Alpha cameras, a new body for the lowest level camera would be about the same as what I purchased mine for 7 years ago - $500.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-12-2013 10:09 PM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Kodak currently makes more than just film, they make printers, digital cameras, document imaging solutions etc etc. It is possible they could end their manufacturing of film and still be around.

Possible. But not probable. Time will tell.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-13-2013 09:49 AM

quote: Scott Norwood
I am curious about Bobby's point: is the camera business really that bad?

Yes. It's bad. Sales of interchangeable lens digital cameras are, for the first time, now in decline.

Canon cut its annual profit forecast in October. DSLR sales overall are down 4% and sales of their compact cameras are down more than 20% compared to 2012 figures. The weakening Japanese Yen (now trading close to 100¥ to $1 instead of 75¥ to $1) is helping to cushion some of the losses.

Nikon issued two negative reports in a row (March & November). The company posted a 41% drop in operating profits for the April-September 6 month period. Their new retro-styled "Df" full frame sensor DSLR isn't selling well. The company is also re-thinking their mirror-less 1 System.

Various articles I've read on the topic speculate on various causes. The global economy is still pretty sluggish, particularly in Asia. Smartphones have definitely put a big dent in digital camera sales, although I think compact, one piece point and shoot cameras have been hurt far worse by smartphones.

The market may also be getting saturated. Anyone who cares about shooting good quality photos probably already has at least one DSLR. Once you get a good DSLR that meets pretty much all your photography needs there's no reason to replace it until it breaks and can't be affordably repaired. Some of the new DSLR bodies being released have some nice new capabilities, but are those advancements good enough to replace a still properly functional DSLR body?

They also got too damned high with their prices. For instance I really don't see the justification for Canon making the 5D Mark III cost $1000 more than the 5D Mark II. The main improvement was adding more auto-focus points. But even cheaper DSLR bodies have that. They went nuts price-gouging on their new lenses.

quote: Scott Norwood
With the same lenses and film, a 1950s Nikon F will take pictures that are just as good as those taken with a modern F6. By contrast, digital necessitates regular upgrades (is anyone regularly using even a ten-year-old digital camera?).

A DSLR isn't going to last nearly as long as a high quality film camera body. But it's easy to get upwards of a decade's worth of service out of one. My Canon 5D Mark II is four years old and I haven't had to get any service work done on it (such as replacing the shutter curtain or cleaning the image sensor). I have no plans on replacing that camera body anytime soon. If I buy any new photography equipment it's going to be in other areas, such as lights, accessories and new lenses. Canon will have to do a hell of a lot better than the 5D Mark III, and price it a LOT better, to get me to replace my 5D Mark II at this point.

quote: Justin Hamaker
One thought about the cost of DSLRs vs. film cameras. Would the savings in consumables over a 10 year period be fairly comparable to the cost a new camera body?

There's tremendous cost savings with shooting digital. That doesn't necessarily mean "better" but it is a lot cheaper. A 24 shot roll of 100 ASA film cost a few bucks and a few more to get it developed. I can shoot hundreds of shots at some event and it would get expensive pretty fast when shooting on film.

BTW, a good film camera body isn't (or wasn't) cheap. I worked at a camera store in midtown Manhattan during my senior year of college and was kind of shocked at some of the prices then. A new Nikon F4s body cost over $2000 in 1990. Factoring inflation that price would probably be about $3500 today. Leica cameras cost considerably more than that.

| IP: Logged

Jeff Missinne
Film Handler

Posts: 3
From: Superior, WI, USA
Registered: Dec 2013

posted 12-31-2013 06:59 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
That's right, so the brand itself will probably be the last thing to "go." Once everything else has been sold off, then they will sell the brand name which will then get slapped on anything from printer paper to drawing boards...pretty much anything that might even be remotely associated with imaging of any type.

Likewise Bell and Howell, a name now associated with luggage, electric razors, flashlights, and electronic gopher repellers. [Shrug]

| IP: Logged

Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 01-01-2014 12:55 AM

Same thing with Polaroid. I have a Polaroid DVD player. Polaroid was ready to produce instant movie film aboutbthe time consumer videotape came out.

Another long lost brand is RCA. Once a sign of quality, now on pretty much anything.

Harold

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.