DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

A rumour but then I have been right twice before

I agree with what Marc says, and I don't so much blame Contax for being tightlipped about it. I'm not running out of patience either, as I still think it will be couple more years before I take the plunge into DSLR. I'm waiting to see what Minolta and Contax have to say about it. (It may not amount to much in the end though.)

On the other hand, it would be certainly reassurring to have Contax share some of its long-term strategy that they are committed to bringing DSLR to the market.

In a little corner of my head a portentious thought is ever gnawing at me: What if Contax just throws in the towel and leaves the camera market altogether and the price of film and processing skyrockets in the year 2005?
happy.gif
 
Taylor, I doubt film will disapper in the foreseeable future. Maybe some of the consumer emulsons might go by the wayside, but not some of the more widely used pro level and photo artist films from Fuji and Kodak. They might cost more and we may have to send them off to be processed, or do them ourselves 10 years down the road. If the signs began appearing I'll buy a skid of B&W and freeze it. Chemicals for black and white are basic and can even be bought in powered bulk form which well last for decades. Even my highest resolution digital backs can't provide the look of 35mm Tri-X in a print...no matter how much you minipulate the pixel structure and add fake grain.
 
Marc, I also do not believe film will ever completely disappear. It will be more like CD and LP as they are today, and therein lies my problem.

The real issue is the price of shooting film, not the survival of film itself. For a novice like me, who mostly shoot color and neither develop nor print at home, it only takes for the price of film and processing to double before I give up on film. Right now I'm paying about $15 to enjoy a roll of Provia (135 format; film+processing). For more expensive films maybe up to $20. Should the price become $30~40 per roll, then I will have to move to digital, kicking and screaming all the way I may.

While I completely agree with you that digital cannot yet match the look and feel of well-made B&W print, most novice/amateur/green-horn photographers shoot color and don't develop/print at home. And the final insult will be seeing my prized Zeiss N-lenses becoming paperweights, because Contax had bailed out of the DSLR market.
sad.gif
 
Hi Taylor. Hmmm, this brings up interesting
things for discussion. It is very similar to discussions on a Leica Rangefinder forum I frequently contribute to. There is no Leica M digital, and Leica itself says it is not possible with the technology currently available. Like the Contax N glass, the Leica M lenses are pro quality, VERY expensive, and prized by their owners. Yet, a majority of those owners are not professionals. The fate of film is a worry to many of them also.

It is ironic that amateur users (who do shoot mostly color) are the ones killing film. If mom and pop kept shooting film it would never disappear nor become to expensive.

However, I believe our N glass will not go by the wayside if we prize shooting over investment potential. The ND may have been plagued with flaws, but it proved it was possible using N lenses. So we are ahead of the Leica M crowd by a long shot.

Possible future scenarios (ie: wish list): Contax does eventually release a D camera able to fullfill the promise of the Zeiss N lenses. Even an upgrade of the ND with a real powerpack insert and decent software by Adobe or LightPhase. 8-10 Meg CCD or 14 meg CMOS (possibly purchased from Kodak who needs new sources of revenue. Maybe even Fovan who needs a higher end name camera than Sigma to enhance their reputation).

Failing the above, some enterprizing individual
designs an adapter to fit N glass on something like Canon EOSD bodies. Canon has a huge lens mount that made it possible to fit many other brands of glass to their bodies. Many Leica SLR owners use their Leica R glass on Canon digital bodies. The question will be one of how much electronic compatibility can be retained, and what will be lost. But what will not be lost is the use of Zeiss glass on a high res digital body.

Taylor, if you really do prize your N lenses above all others, and really believe they may become paperweights, you should hunt down an ND and get it while you can. Just look in the Gallery at images taken with this camera. They prove the camera works, and the design flaws can be either fixed (increase power), or worked around (shoot J-Peg).
 
Hello Marc,

Well, mom and pop maybe killing film, but most of them just shoot C41 and happily have their favorite drugstores develop and print it. And I don't see that changing much in the foreseeable future, as the initial investment for a digital camera (even $200 a pop) would seem too high for regular moms and pops who shoot only on bithdays and bar mitzvah. They will be perfectly happy with their one-time P&S that Walmart sells for $7.99. I'm more concerned with local pro shops that process E6 for me, and slide is the main reason I want to stay with film. Color negatives are most often used for portraiture, and for that purpose digital has become sufficiently capable. I've seen a number of pros moving to digital (Fuji S2PRO for ex&le) who mostly shoot portraiture. So if there was no slide, I would have moved to digital much sooner.

I believe it is actually up to the pros how film (B&W and E6) would turn out. Moms and pops don't print Tri-X at home or shoot slides. Kodak MAX400 may be losing market share to digital P&S, but pros don't shoot with MAX400. It is the pro and amateur photographers who care enough to shoot B&W and E6, and this market is wholly controlled by them.

Anyway, at the moment I don't think that digital has matured enough to truly reflect the performance of lenses, not even ND. I will wait some more and see how Contax will unfold its DSLR stragety. Should Contax fail to adapt and exit the market, then I will have to move to digital from some other manufacturer, keeping my N gear as a memento of good old days. And maybe I should teach myself how to print B&W at home.
happy.gif
 
Taylor, I hate to break the news to you but this year digital cameras have surpassed film cameras in sales. And it's Mom & Pop that's doing it. In fact Kodak's credit was just downgraded due to sagging film sales.

The Pros aren't going to save the day either. Most of them are busy going digital. Why do you think MF gear prices have dropped like a stone? In general, if a Pro isn't digital, they will be in a year from now. It's where the journalist went a while ago, where wedding shooters are going in droves, and the commercial shooters are 75% there already. Who's left?
 
With respect to the Mom & Pop volume market that is key to maintaining low costs, the film companies are fighting back by sponsoring outfits like Ofoto (Kodak) and Shutterfly (Fuji), which are reducing the costs of processing film through technology and centralization. Although this may be regarded as a rearguard action, it should be interesting to see how it develops.

With high quality film scanners now being so inexpensive, it also seems tempting for amateurs for whom immediate processing is not a commercial imperative, to stay with film (and an extensive associated lens collection) for now, rather than risk a huge investment in digital lenses and cameras that may be obsolete in three years.

Perhaps some of our experts can tell us at what megapixel level (or some other appropriate benchmark) will digital match the quality of film ?

On the positive side, great strides seem to be made in the digital darkroom, and film users can access these benefits via a film scanner. Surely this is something to celebrate?
 
"It's where the journalist went a while ago, where wedding shooters are going in droves, and the commercial shooters are 75% there already. Who's left?" Well, looking through the submissions to photo magazines probably most amateur photographers are still not convinced that the image from 6Mp cameras is worth ditching film for. Then there are those who service image libraries where they still require high quality i.e. 35mm Velvia or Medium Format film images or at least high end scans of film images.

In fact, if you take the digital compacts out of the equation I would be surprised if 10% of hobby photographers had switched to digital.

The press and wedding photographers have different priorities to the masses.
 
Marc, in terms of "new sales" digital has surpassed film this year, but in terms of "total installed user base" there are still far more film cameras than digital in the hands of mom and pop. It will be a few more years before digital takes over the majority share in the consumer market. Nonetheless, film companies should feel the decrease in revenue, and it is going to get worse still.

My main fear is that, while nobody has a clear DSLR solution that surpass film at a reasonable price, film companies may start dismantling film market to "get ahead of the market." That will result in fewer film choices, increased cost and inconvenience for us, all the while DSLR is not yet up to the quality of film at a reasonable price. I guess market analysts would call it "transition period."
happy.gif
 
Film manufacturers also benefit from the huge disposable market, and this seems unlikely to be replaced by digital.

So the film market has some strong niches and seems unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

I am also rather curious as to just how profitable the digital market is for manufacturers, given the ferocious competition , the huge capital expenditures that are required, and the short product lifecycle.
 
Back
Top