Third Party New Lens
Introduction - Highlighting Oil Shocks, Recessions, and SLR
Photography's Peak Year (1977) using dates of introducing 1600+ new
lenses...
Related Links:
Statistics of the Photo Industry
Economics of Third Party Lens
Introductions (max in late 70s)
Turning Semipro (low pro photographer wage
statistics)
was at http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2000/00fb_e04.pdf
Nikon and worldwide SLR sales data (see note) [11/2000]
[Ed. note: link reports not found (error 404) as of 2/2003 link checks]
To understand the future of serious photography, consider these figures:
Number of serious amateur and professional photographers:
1981 1/2 million
1993 1/2 million
rate of growth = zero
Number of cameras sold in U.S.:
SLR cameras:
1981 2.6 million
1993 725k*
rate of decline = 146k less per year ==> Is 1998 the year of the last SLR?
Point and Shoot (camera + fixed lens)
1981 800k
1993 13 million
Disposable cameras:
1981 -
1993 22 million USA
1993 62 million Japan
35mm film market - color print film = 96% slides, B&W, etc. = 4%
Source: Popular Photography, Sept. 1993 p. 14, Keppler's SLR column
*Popular Photography, Jan. 1995 p. 18, Keppler's SLR column
(originally projected 850k in Sept. 1993, sold only 725k SLRs)
| Updated Sales Figures for Japan - 1999 |
|---|
|
33.9 million 35mm cameras (-6%) [includes single use, compact 35mm..] 1.5 million APS cameras (-2%) 766 thousand 35mm SLRs (+3.6%) 25 thousand medium format cameras (-9%)
Digital: |
| Source: Leica Mailing List Posting by Erwin Puts |
These figures don't bode well for the future of serious photography in
the U.S. Here are some observations based on the above figures.
There has been no growth in the number of serious amateur and
professional photographer numbers between 1981 and 1993. At best, we are
barely replacing those folks who drop out or die off. Otherwise, we would
have real growth. Actually, since the population is growing through legal
and illegal immigration, our lack of growth suggests we are really
declining and not reaching these pools of new immigrant groups too.
If you project the 146k per year decline in SLR sales observed from 1981
through 1993 to 1998, you would conclude that SLR sales should drop to
zero by year's end (i.e., 725k - (5*146k) => 0). Obviously, I don't think
that is true. But the current 75% or so decline in sales has negative
consequences for serious photographers in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Despite a 1,625% increase in the number of point and shoot (camera,
shutter, fixed lens cameras), we have had no growth in serious
photographer numbers during this thirteen year period. To me, this means
that point and shoot photographers don't go on to become serious
photographers in any noticeable number. That means 99% of the reusable
camera buyers are not likely to become serious photographers after their
point and shoot experiences.
The 22 million disposable camera sales didn't help to boost serious
photographer numbers either. The Pop.Photo. articles suggested to me that
the reverse is true, with the 62 million disposables sold in Japan (half
the U.S. population size) cannabalizing not only SLR sales but even P&S
sales! If so, then Japan's experience reflects photography's future in
the U.S. towards a disposable camera majority.
I suggest that some of the nearly 2 million annual lost SLR sales can be
attributed to the loss of camera store outlets to drugstore and film
processing labs. These outlets don't have the trained sales staff or space
to properly promote and sell serious photography equipment. Others may
also blame mail order sales, discounting, or the switch to camcorders.
Without a flux of SLR and serious photography buyers each year, camera
stores and related commercial resources must decline precipitiously (and
have!).
The good news from those 13 million P&S sales is that you can get film
developed anywhere, albeit often badly and only as long as it is color
print film (96% of the market per PopPhoto). Don't expect professional
development, or even quality enlargements. Forget about black and white
processing and color slides, which are now only 4% of the market. Since
slides are usually associated with professional and serious amateur
photography, this decline shouldn't be surprising in light of the above
factoids. If you shoot black and white, you are in the 1% minority.
How often does the serious amateur photographer buy a new SLR camera on
the average? If you say every five years, then one-fifth of the half
million serious amateurs equates to 100,000 SLR camera sales per year.
The rest must be coming from newbies. For 1993, we had 725k SLR sales,
with perhaps 100k sold to the existing pool of experienced photographers.
This suggests that in 1993, we had perhaps 625k new buyers of SLRs.
However you look at it, most of the SLR buyers must be first timers.
But the number of serious amateurs didn't grow during the 1981 through
1993 period, right? So virtually all of these newbies who bought SLRs
must have dropped out of photography. Those few who stayed in and became
serious amateur and semi-professional photographers were nearly exactly
balanced by those serious photographers who dropped out or died off. It
can't be otherwise, given that the numbers of serious photographers has
been constant over the observed 13 year period.
Any way I look at it, I am forced to conclude that at least 95% of the new
SLR buyers are not going on to become serious amateurs. What's wrong with
photography that this is so, and why aren't the manufacturers, clubs,
magazines, and the rest of the industry working on doing something to keep
these folks active in photography?
Let us look at some of the negative consequences of these trends. First,
there are fewer SLR sales and fewer camera stores, and by extension, fewer
local camera repair sites too. Getting color slides developed is a much
slower process, while black and white processing is either unavailable or
only from professional labs. Even quality print processing requires either
mailout or longer trips to a professional processor. If you can't get
high quality enlargements or color slides, how can you be a serious
amateur with muddy processing of 4x5 color prints from your SLR camera?
Maybe you have noticed that SLR costs are rising a lot faster than
inflation? In the past, those millions of SLR buyers made it easier for
the mfgers to absorb the cost of developing professional cameras and the
odd or fast lens versions favored and needed by professionals. I suggest
that the manufacturers can no longer do so in today's smaller marketplace,
so these costs come more directly out of the high end buyer's pockets. The
cost of developing the constantly changing features and lens mounts has to
be recovered from fewer buyers, and over less time now too. This
observation suggests why prices have spiraled upward and why they will
continue to do so as costs increase and sales decline.
Actually, I think it is worse than that, with new features of modest or
questionable utility being developed in order to rapidly obsolete high
end cameras and lenses. This forces some buyers to purchase the latest
versions, generating more sales and profits for their manufacturers. But
is the high end professional camera really worth seven times the price of
the entry level SLR with similar features and using the same lenses? Do
you really understand, let alone know how to intelligently use, all those
new features?
Paradoxically, you also have more choices because electronics has made it
possible to differentiate cameras by features while using similar bodies
and production facilities to make the various versions. In the past, you
bought a nikkormat, or you bought a nikon F2. Today, you have a lot of
choices, but that means the serious amateurs don't have to pay for the top
of the line model. Only those with the monies or those much fewer
professionals can justify today's top of the line camera costs, especially
with the rapid obsolescence of bodies and lens mounts.
While this is good news for some buyers, it means a much more complex
marketplace of SLR cameras and features. That means it is harder to sell
and to buy the right camera today, especially given the decline in camera
stores and trained sales people. Am I the only one who is confused by all
the current models of cameras? You would think SLR sales had increased
400%, instead of declining 75%. How many of those top-of-the-line features
do you really think you would use, and how often would they make a
difference in your pictures? Again, is it worth seven times as much to you
to have those features and a bit more rugged camera over the entry level
SLRs? Are all those features so confusing to use that you are better off
with a simpler camera, or even an all-mechanical one?
Years ago, I think you also got better quality and performance from prime
mfgers lenses than the much less expensive third party lenses. Today, that
seems less and less true. For one thing, the same folks may be making both
lenses now, and the same lens is sold under a dozen labels. Even if you
think the slightly better optical performance is worth multiples of the
third party lens prices, can you get that performance onto your prints or
slides from your developer? As for the sharpness mania, do you realize
that most autofocus lenses deliver far less critical sharpness in
practice than a carefully focused manual lens (again, per PopPhoto and
other tests)? If you are a serious amateur photographer, why are you
paying three to ten times more for autofocus lenses that are far worse in
practice than your older manual focus lenses? Duh?
Even the OEM camera bodies are being made in countries not know for their
quality movements, in an effort to reduce labor costs and raise profits.
But if the same camera made by the same folks is available for even less
under a no-name label, what does that do to the value of the OEM's stamp
of approval on their imported third world cameras? Does putting the big
name on the third world imported camera make it just as good as their own
cameras? Who are they fooling, if it isn't you and me?
Many buyers are using these third party lenses in order to save major
dollars over the much higher priced similar OEM lenses. But lenses and
add-ons constitute a major profit center for the manufacturers, and the
loss of these sales further hurts the manufacturers. I call this process
the death spiral, as their prices spiral upwards, causing sales to
decline, which causes prices to go up more to recover fixed R&D and other
costs, so sales go down, and so on.
Another factor is at work that also slows high end sales besides the
higher price. Today's much more costly cameras are also higher quality.
By analogy to cars, PepBoys annual report noted that increased car quality
had reduced demand for parts by 5% a year, so rather than permitting them
to grow they were facing declines. I suggest that the same is happening in
the camera industry. Better quality cameras means longer times before
purchasing a second SLR at an even higher price.
Repair sites have fewer high end cameras to work on, explaining in part
why CLA of even simple professional SLR cameras has exploded upwards in
price. Adding expensive custom electronics test equipment and computer
skills to mechanical and optical skills means fewer more highly paid
camera repair folks to me. Maintaining parts for all these models is
surely a costly nightmare too. But OEM camera repairs in or out of
warranty are a cost center, not a profit center, for most manufacturers.
At the low end, it is often cheaper to buy a new body in warranty than to
get an old one fixed. The diffusion of quality is found in all the SLR
cameras, not just the high end ones. That suggests that the cameras will
last at least as long as the average owner's interest in photography. Why
pay seven times as much for a hyper quality camera that will be obsolete
in three years? And if there are fewer breakdowns, won't there be fewer
people buying new SLRs?
Remember those 2.6 million SLR sales from 1981? Those cameras are mostly
either gone or gathering dust in millions of closets. But a fair number
must have ended up on the used market, powering the budget minded entry
into SLR photography for many people in the 1980s, myself included. But
fast-forward to 1993. Now we only sold 725K SLR cameras. Future used
equipment buyers will have far fewer cameras to buy, and in many more
shorter lived models, with fewer lenses, at much higher prices. Not a
very good climate to get students or others on limited budgets into
photography, is it?
Changes in lens mount with automation changes means far fewer lenses will
be available for use on any given body. After the FTC mandated 7 year
period, many parts will no longer be available too. So cameras will become
unrepairable with those fancy electronic circuits now turning into the
camera's Achille's heel. And you have probably noticed that the
electronics seems to be the weakest link on many of today's models, right?
Now combine the higher purchase costs with the more frequent model and
lens mount changes, difficulty in repairs, and presumed scarcity of lens
and add-ons due to lower sales and faster model changes. Don't expect high
end used camera prices to remain low as current model prices climb into
the stratosphere either. I infer that the used camera market will become
much less of a bargain resource, especially as today's advanced features
migrate downward onto lower end and cheaper cameras over time. Today's
fancy auto-lenses will become tomorrow's surplus, only useful on a
relative handful of obsolete camera bodies for sale at higher prices.
What about non-U.S. market cameras? Won't these third world markets
support overall camera sales, thereby providing the funds for maintaining
high end cameras and features for the U.S. market without our having to
pay for them? Sorry, but the third world doesn't buy a lot of Nikon F5s.
They may get a chance to buy some low end models with stripped features
that manufacturers are loathe to import into the U.S. due to the low
profit. Look at it from their viewpoint. Wouldn't you rather sell a $750
camera than a $250 camera body, given you are only going to make one sale?
On the other hand, expect to see more lower cost lenses from the major
manufacturers to try and compete with lower cost third party lenses
(e.g., the nikon E series). The big sacrifice here is in ruggedness and
quality, trading longevity for lower initial cost. But how else can the
mfgers compete with the third party lens makers who have far less diverse
manufacturing setups and lower overheads?
My guess is that the trend towards zoom lenses is going to kill off the
sales of prime lenses, aided by the low quality of most developing labs.
Many cameras now come with zoom lenses as a replacement for prime normal
lens. But I suggest this trend means further profit losses for the
manufacturers, plus greater competition from third party sellers.
If the big name manufacturers don't make as much money off the lenses, or
from the bodies, where will they make their money? Don't forget that they
can go out of business, with Pentacon being a recent example. At the end,
the Prakticas that cost $165 were costing over $650 to make, and it was
cheaper for the German government to pay the workers to stay home than to
make cameras! Are Japan's manufacturers too far down the sunset industry
path to recover? Will the current 1997 year-end financial crises in Asia
make your camera an orphan too?
Based on the figures at the start of this article, I suggest that serious
photography is in trouble as we head into 1998. The numbers of serious
photographers hasn't increased significantly. Far fewer SLRs are being
sold. More people may be taking photographs, but they are using
disposable and point and shoot cameras rather than SLRs. Very few of them
are becoming serious amateur or professional photographers. That means
that the costs for the rest of us have to go up to make up for those lost
sales and profits. With fewer new cameras, at higher prices, and with more
models, there will be fewer used cameras and they will cost more too.
The great decline in SLR sales from 2.6 million to 725k documented above
suggests that we are already well down on the death spiral path of
declining sales and rising costs. The solution lies in finding out why 95%
of all new SLR buyers are not going on to become serious amateur
photographers but are dropping out instead. Unless the SLR photography
industry can identify and retain some of these people, I believe that
serious photography will quickly become a much more difficulty and
expensive hobby and profession to pursue.
See also Economics of camera production
and camera reliability surprises
--Source:
From [email protected] Wed Dec 31 21:03:59 CST 1997
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Death Spiral of Serious Amateur Photography - Facts &
Observations]
Third Party New Lens
Introduction - Highlighting Oil Shocks, Recessions, and SLR
Photography's Peak Year (1977) using dates of introducing 1600+ new
lenses...
Thanks to one and all, and especially a number of direct emailers with
most useful and interesting commentary on my initial posting. I hope to
collect some of these comments and create a home page for this thread so
as to preserve some of the better ideas and criticisms of my original
posting
I want to point out that the term ''serious amateur photographer'' is not
limited to 35mm SLR owners, despite my posting this in rec.photo..35mm ;-)
I wouldn't want to leave out those with $2,000+ point and shoot titanium
ultra-cameras nor those who also use medium format or 4x5 and larger (as
I do too ;-) from the ranks of serious amateur photographers. But however
measured, the ranks of serious photographers doesn't seem to be growing...
One reply noted that the numbers of new medium format and especially
large format buyers had declined so steeply that these were endangered
species, with some brands (horseman etc.) being hardly able to advertise
while others (hassy..) having to recover these costs by higher and higher
prices. As I suggested in my original postings, this is my "death spiral"
view of photography's future, unless we all do something to reverse it...
I think the Internet does offer some great positive opportunities to
promote serious photography. For one thing, lots of us are isolated in
our hobbies, having no local friends who are either interested or able to
discuss this hobby either intelligently or passionately. The Internet
offers us that opportunity, but we need to work harder on making it an
inclusionary experience and a positive one.
Several posters noted that photography is numerically an older (over 55
per one poster) centered hobby - which suggests we need to do a lot more
to involve and recruit younger recruits. One simple example might be a
program to solicit tax deductible camera donations from no longer
interested photo dropouts, and recycle them to younger users. Is there
any 501(C3) or similar charity which is doing this, and if not, can't we
create one? Maybe the donated collectible cameras could be sold (reducing
high prices of today's market?) and turned into needed accessories and
film and processing for these new student recruits? Others might be able
to donate some time teaching a few how-to-do-it sessions etc? A high
school oriented program might be just the thing to get us growing again?
I think the computer offers an extension and new capability to serious
amateur photography, specifically in manipulating images, but that the
image has to come first. A great deal of the original quality and info is
lost today in compromises to make reasonable download times possible.
On the other hand, there is sooo much great photography already being
shared by individuals on the internet, with two more listings offered for
freebies by individuals just today on this rec.photo forum, that we have
a really great opportunity here if we will take or make it. We really
need a way to locate these quality images, categorize them, an image
based search engine, by category (nature photo etc.). Any suggestions?
Great idea to check and identify the best local processing places (ask
your local newspaper in modest sized towns, local prof. photogr. in cities)
Most one hour labs are bad, but we can demand better and patronize those
who are offering the best quality and service in our local areas. We can
also share positive experiences with labs that do mail order business too.
I think we are already revising business operations at many savvy camera
stores, who are beginning to learn the power of the Internet to share
info on negative and positive experiences with them - right? ;-)
A minor innovation of my own to this end is online at my bronica used and
for sale wanted to buy site at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronused.html
This site gathers dozens of dealer listings from multiple sources for 6x6
bronica related cameras, lenses, and accessories and manuals into one site.
One stop shopping for those looking for this particular camera or accessories
I also have four entire camera manuals online plus lots of articles etc.
Now others have done similar sites for a given brand too, but imagine
what we could do if we could coordinate more such sites and info for us all..
Since the projections are that we will soon jump from ten to thirty to
more than one hundred million folks on line, we can expect to have a huge
number of both newbies and more experienced folks joining us. Whether
they elect to stay active will depend a lot on how we receive them in
rec.photo and what benefits they bring and get out of the WWW online
photography experience.
We also need to do a lot more to welcome foreign and non-English language
folks into these goings on, but I don't know how, and I am open to any
suggestions on what we can do to welcome them and include them in. Some of
the most interesting photo sites I have seen last year were online from
Singapore and other foreign sites. I also think the possibility to locate
rare items, hard to find film sources (e.g., 127 film for me ;-), and
even buy used photo items at bargain prices worldwide will be *really*
interesting for many of us online ;-)
So I just wanted to pass on some of these hopeful notes, and suggest that
we need to continue to expand our sharing of photo ideas and experiences
online, as these may help fill a void that increasing our numbers alone
won't fill...
again, happy 1998 to all - regards - bob monaghan
--
An Update:
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Followup-To: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Death Spiral Update (long diatribe ;-)
re: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/brondeath.html Death Spiral of Amat.
Photogr.
Sadly, I find that the death spiral seems to be accelerating, viz.:
Serious amateur photography doesn't exist in isolation. You have to have
various photographic resources to do photography. People have to come
into the hobby to replace those who leave and die off, if there is to be
a viable photoindustry over the long-term. The two are symbiotic - you
can't do photography without film and paper and photogear, and you can't
sell much photogear to people who aren't seriously interested in photography.
Last month, we lost a long-time supplier of film and papers in Europe
(Fotochemika/Adox..). This month, Agfa film products got spun out on its
own largely because it was a money losing business. Neither is a good sign.
Consumers in the USA buy 96% color print film, splitting the remaining 4%
between color slides, black and white, and all specialty films (Polaroid,
IR..). Now you understand why there are still no slide films for APS
users! We continue to lose much-loved classic films such as Ektar 25 and
VPS this last quarter alone. I could also talk about the on-going losses of
rich high silver content darkroom papers too.
If you use a 620 or 127 format camera, you have lost most film emulsions
and sources in the last year or so too. Ditto 126 cartridge, disc
cameras, and all but a few 110 camera films, also all in the last year or
so. Is APS next?
A Shutterbug review of the recent major European photoindustry show
concluded that there were few new camera introductions, and most of these
were niche cameras (panoramics..). I suggest that the manufacturers are
avoiding investing in new current technology cameras until they see how
the digital revolution is going to impact them.
Most current 35mm SLR and MF/LF cameras are "mature technology", from
which you take profits as you wear out the tooling. R&D investments are
obviously going more towards a digital future. Everybody is waiting for
the next generation of imaging chips to get the density up and the costs
down to where photo-quality images are available in a consumer price
range.
Should we be worried about the consumer masses going digital?
Optimists will predict the explosion of computerized digital cameras and
online image creation will leave many digital photo users wanting more
quality, and upgrading to real film and SLR cameras. Surely some users
will make this transition, but will it be enough to sustain the
photoindustry and our hobby?
As I noted in my "Death Spiral" article, 13 million point and shoot
camera sales didn't seem to increase the numbers of serious amateur
photographers. Why would non-film based digital technology do so when it
didn't happen with film based P+S users?
Pessimists will argue that most users will be happy with the quality of a
megapixel image from their $149 digital camera that can be posted
directly on the WWW. Those who want a print will simply have their $300+
Epson photo-quality color computer printers print one out. Thanks to simple
software, they can crop and color correct, even sharpen the photo on
their home computer before printing it out. Instead of mailing out
prints, they simply send the photo as an email attachment to their
relatives. For those without a computer, they can simply dump the digital
photos at their local minilab and select which ones they want to print on
the store's Epson color printer or store images on disk or the WWW.
Based on what I have seen this last year, I am firmly in the pessimists
camp. The cheapy mini-lab prints have accustomed folks to accepting a low
quality print, often soft-focused to hide scratches that the lab's poor
processing has put on the negatives. A nice 300 dpi or better 24 bit
color print is quite acceptable, maybe even a step up for most consumers.
Given the huge cost savings of no film and no processing costs, plus no
delays and instant gratification, who can doubt that digital is the wave
of the future for many consumers?
If you are in the photo-industry, this is a disconcerting view. Intel
makes the chips. The lenses are tiny, fixed, low cost optics. Zeiss
quality isn't needed. The printers and computers are unrelated to our
photo-technology, as is the software used. What strengths can the current
photo-industry players sell us in a future digital photography world? Not
film or paper or processing. Not lenses. Surely not software or chips,
right? Are they dinosaurs? Hmmm?
This thread started out asking whether Rollei or Hasselblad will be with
us in 5-7 years? My argument is that they are already gone, as I think of
them.
Rollei has gone through a number of virtual bankruptcies, most recently
being bought out by a Korean company whose bean-counters are less
impressed by past Germanic glories than by present profit performance,
understandable given their moribund economy. The Hasselblad family also
read the tea-leaves, and reportedly have sold out control of Hasselblad
to a number of private investors (Swiss..).
In my opinion, both of these companies have already lost touch with their
historical roots through these trans-national sales. Consider the use of
Rollei's prestigious names on Korean made consumer cameras and lenses, or
the Hasselblad Xpan which looks a whole lot like a certain Fuji camera
under a Hasselblad logo. The old Rollei and Hasselblad companies would
never have done that, don't you agree?
The older cameras will be produced so long as the tooling holds out,
possibly with minimal improvements, if only to maximize the value and
profits from these resources. The names and trademarks will be exploited
until they no longer mean what they once did, meaning the names live on
long after the cameras that gave them prestige have been dropped. So to
me, Hasselblad and Rollei are already gone in spirit, if not in steel and
plastic and marketing ads.
Japan has marked their photography industry as a "sunset" industry, which
was hollowed out (moved offshore) and starved for investment and talented
staff. Big names in cameras (Canon, Ricoh..) now mostly make office
photocopier machines etc. rather than get their profits from camera
divisions. Third party lenses by Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma are now often
better than the OEM lenses they compete against, a far cry from the past!
In Germany, the last Pentacon plant was shut down in former East Germany
when the Prakticas that sold for $165 new were found to cost $650 to
produce. As noted above, Rollei was sold out too. Who's left making
cameras in Germany? Who's the next industry domino to fall?
Who is to blame for the current state of photography - the photoindustry
or the serious amateur photographers?
My personal view is that the photoindustry is mainly to blame for the
present precarious state of the hobby. For years, the photo-industry has
pursued a series of changes designed to force you and I to constantly
upgrade our cameras and lenses and photogear. The reason was simply
because they needed to generate more sales from a constantly declining
market, as 35mm SLR sales slipped from 2.6 million sold in 1981 to
725,000+ sold in 1993.
These changes raised short term profits, at the expense of the long-term
loss of amateur photographers and hobbyists with each forced upgrade/change.
We have had a number of lens mount shifts which obsoleted tens of
millions of dollars worth of our hobbyist investments in lenses and
cameras. The rise of autofocus may not have solved many problems for some
of us, but it sure helped sell a lot of expensive new cameras and
lenses. That helped solve the industry's problems, but at what cost in users?
At the high end, we saw many camera prices rise up to three times as fast
as the rate of inflation, year in and year out, for decades. Hasselblad
is one example I have documented elsewhere, but not the only one. Given
the minor nature of the improvements in their classic camera bodies and
lenses, how do they really justify the huge increases in cost, even in
constant dollar terms? On a positive note, the shift to a Rollei
controlled USA importer and distributor has cut their prices, and helped
cap medium format prices from some competitors such as Hasselblad. Is it
too little, too late?
At the other end, the photoindustry's new consumer APS format managed to
reduce the size of the film image while substantially raising film costs.
Few APS cameras take full advantage of major APS features (e.g., data
recording capability). Many mini-labs refused to invest in new APS
processing machines, retarding the spread and acceptance of the format.
You still can't buy slide film in APS formats etc., despite over a year
of empty promises. Lots of ads on TV seems to be where the money went...
While APS cameras are small, many 35mm cameras are similar in size and
nearly as easy to use with autoloading and DX coding. You can crop
panoramics from 35mm film too, and get higher quality at lower cost. I
suggest that the problems which APS solved were mainly those of the
photo-industry, and not those of you and I as consumers. Agree or disagree?
What about the charges that people today don't have the time for hobbies?
I think that's partly true, but photography is not that time intensive,
is it? You can take pictures nearly anywhere, and I carry a camera
around and shoot some film almost every day. How much time does it take
to shoot a handful of rolls of film a month for the average
photographer? The cost of cameras has declined in real terms, so
economic barriers aren't the reason photography is in decline as a
hobby.
Demographically, there aren't many kids and twenty-somethings out there
in the current generation, compared to the baby boomers aging numbers.
Amateur photographer's average age is reportedly in the late 40s or early
50s, depending on the source, and getting older with every survery
(meaning fewer new young incoming users). In my mf/photostats.html page,
I note that the average household/family is spending less than 75 cents a
week on photography or under $38 per year. You can't buy many SLRs and
lenses and shoot much film on that, can you? ;-)
Personally, I think photography is about making pictures, which means
thinking about photographs and controlling the process. That creative
and technical challenge is what interests me. Paradoxically, the more
the camera does for me, the easier it seems to be to get a snapshot
instead of making a real picture. I find my medium format photos are
better precisely because I take more care in composing them and think
through what I am doing than with my more automatic 35mm cameras.
The current auto-everything cameras are aimed at tyros, not
photographers. Loading the film is automated, setting the film speed is
automatic, even focusing and exposure are done for you. What's left for
the photographer to do? Why should the camera have all the fun?
The lack of popularity of photography also saddens me personally, since I
know that many folks in our culture don't have a really creative or
artistic outlet. I can't paint or make sculpture, but I can make
creative photos, and so can most people with study and application.
Photography could be the kind of creative and artistic outlet many people
yearn for, but haven't found.
Today we have folks shooting their weddings with six-packs of disposable
cameras, thanks to promotions of the photo-industry. Others use home
video cameras, unaware of future archival storage issues of video tape.
How many mini-labs process their prints so they won't fade away after a
few years in the sun? My best underwater photography slides are already
starting to fade. How about your negatives and slides? If photography is
about keeping memories, as the ads go, shouldn't the film and prints last
at least a generation, let alone a lifetime? By the time the lawsuits start
flying, it will be too late!
Another issue I have addressed is the intentional obsolescence of current
high technology cameras by limited life LCD panels and chip components.
LCD display panels don't last forever; many have lives of 10 years or so.
That's 10 calendar years, whether on or off, so spare parts go bad just
sitting around too. If a custom chip fails in your camera, and it is no
longer supported, you have a high tech paperweight too. While you and I
like to think of high end cameras as investments, the photoindustry
benefits more if they become obsolete and unrepairable, thereby forcing
us to upgrade to new ones, right? Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Some of us also wonder why we didn't hear more about the plans to
obsolete all our mercury battery using photogear by making mercury
batteries illegal to make in the USA. Not just classic cameras, but
light meters and other gear suddenly became obsolete paperweights for
most consumers. Now they'll have to buy new ones and upgrade all those
lenses too, right? Do you wonder why the photoindustry didn't publicize
this more and ask for consumers to fight for a waiver or alternative plan?
Given the high levels of pollution from many home darkrooms, anybody
still using a darkroom want to make a bet on how much longer all these
hazardous chemicals are going to be available for sale? Duh? Think the
photoindustry will warn us about that before or after it is too late?
Will the mini-labs be able to reach E.P.A. limits on effluents, go out of
business, or switch to digital? Maybe they'll mail out the film to Mexico?
How about those new killer Xray machines at the airports. Did the photo
industry staff who "reviewed" these machines blow it? How many folks
will find out about the killer xrays by having their once in a lifetime
trip films ruined? Maybe you heard about it on the Internet, but months
went by before anything showed up in the photomagazines. Now there's a
new super xray machine called L-3 coming, but you don't want to hear more
bad news now, I'm sure.
I see these screw-ups as proof that there isn't any dark coordinated
photoindustry conspiracy. I'm thinking more in terms of the gang that
couldn't shoot straight here. If they had a clear view of the future, and
a gameplan for growing marketshare while bringing along the masses of
current users and serious amateur photographers, I would feel better about
all this. But clearly they don't. Instead, they seem happy to burn many
thousands of current users with obsolescence and format changes, without
any clear plan on where to find serious photography users to
replace us.
Maybe it is just me, but the photoindustry doesn't even seem terribly
good at listening to their remaining customers, do they? A lot of the
current autofocus consumer cameras are obviously the design of marketing
committees, not someone who actually shoots film for fun or a living.
Limited resources seem to be squandered on solutions to problems most of
us don't have (the Arcbody or Flexbody comes to mind here). Who comes up
with these AF camera control interfaces and button locations, anyway? Duh?
I personally doubt that ANY of the current photoindustry players will be
major players some ten years into the future of digital photography.
None of them seem to have the "fire in their bellies" needed to succeed
in making such a huge transition. It is all a faceless bureaucracy, with
all that implies. Nor do they have the right technology to lead either.
Too bad, like many users, I kind of like the cameras and their makers by
extension for past glories and efforts, but they haven't done much for us
lately, but everything for themselves it often seems. Agree or disagree?
Somebody with that "fire" is going to come in and make a crusade out of
digital photography, but it isn't going to be a player in the current
industry, I'd bet. And cameras and lenses are going to be the smallest
part of the equation too. That won't leave much "photo" for the
photoindustry to play up their strengths and technology.
In short, I think the death spiral of serious amateur photography
continues at an every increasing pace. In the last year and a half since
posting the original article, we have seen the abandonment of many films
and papers, along with such formats as 620, 127, 126, disc, and 110 all
going obsolete or endangered species.
More importantly, after seeing the quality possible with the new Epson
color printers, I'm convinced film and paper faces huge marketshare
losses soon. If film and paper sales collapse, what's left of the industry?
Why should consumers use medium format cameras and lenses, or 35mm Nikons..,
if they can get such surprising quality from a low cost computer printer and
wallet sized digital camera? Why pay big bucks for high quality lenses
where the differences won't show up in the photos online? Who needs
Tiffen filters with photoshop software? See the photoindustry's problem here?
When the marginal amateur photographers switch to digital cameras and
Epson prints, will there be enough of us left to keep the film and paper
and conventional cameras and lenses in production? I doubt it, don't you?
We have mostly already dropped out due to high costs, or obsoleting of
our gear, or the high cost of keeping up with every new change they can
think of. Only now, the demographics are against them being able to
recruit enough new buyers to replace us. Digital photography is going to
grab most of those new and younger users, leaving the conventional
photoindustry with very little of value to sell in a digital dominated world.
That's why I call it a death spiral.... ;-)
------- The End!
From: [email protected] (peters)
To: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Subject: Re: Death Spiral of Serious Amateur Photography - Facts &
Observations
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 05:06:54 GMT
On 31 Dec 1997 21:02:04 -0600, you wrote:
Serious Photography's Death Spiral - Facts and Observations for 1998
by Robert Monaghan - [email protected]
A couple of related observations:
When photography was in its heyday, a good camera was a status symbol.
A Speed Graphic represented a month's wages. I think this whetted
the appetite for a good camera. Now what does a decent camera cost?
Depending on what you consider decent, as little as a day or two's
wages. So a camera is no longer a status symbol.
Also, people have a lot more toys to play with: boats, computers,
etc.
About a year ago or two, a seller of used cameras in Seattle was
showing me the sales figure for a lot of medium and large format
equipment. If you want to see something scarey, you should see how
little new large format equipment is sold. when you see all the hype
in popular photography, you get the impression it is a big thing. Not
So! I have a Horseman Press and was talking to the factory rep. I
told him I thought it was unfortunate that such a good camera was
Japan's best kept secret. He said they can't sell enough of them to
pay for the advertising. So they didn't advertise.
I have swapped camera stuff for about 15 years as a hobby. It's sad to
see the decline in darkroom stuff. I used to be able to sell stainless
steel tanks and reels quickly. Now I can't get rid of them.
Another factor: Good cameras like the Mamiya C330 were not changed enough
to cause people to want to upgrade to a later body. No built in meter, no
auto exposure, no winder...why buy new? There are enough used ones on the
market that have all the features of later ones that there is no reason to
buy a new one. So as much as I hate to admit it, planned obsolescence at
least keeps manufacturers in business.
I watch at our camera shows, and you see very few young people coming
through. 90 percent or more of the people are 55 and older. When they
pass on, I don't see young people stepping in to take their place.
--bob
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998
I think you want just enough obsolescence that there is a reason to buy
new, but not so much that your whole system is suddenly junk. I suspect
that the change away from mercury batteries without widespread battery
replacements COULD be a conspiracy (much as I don't like that word) to
obsolete a lot of good photo equipment. One exception is Gossen's
replacement battery adapter for the LunaPro that costs $18.00. I really
respect Gossen for their customer loyalty.
planned obsolescence is a double edged sword - good for mfgers if it
creates demand and expands market share, but bad if it loses their loyal
following.
I agree:
bob peters
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998
R. Peters wrote:
I think you want just enough obsolescence that there is a reason to buy
new, but not so much that your whole system is suddenly junk. I suspect
that the change away from mercury batteries without widespread battery
replacements COULD be a conspiracy (much as I don't like that word) to
obsolete a lot of good photo equipment. One exception is Gossen's
replacement battery adapter for the LunaPro that costs $18.00. I really
respect Gossen for their customer loyalty.
Great points too - wish I'd remembered that one too ;-) My sources at
Radio Shack in Ft. Worth suggest that this change volumetrically and sales
$ wise really relates to the hearing aid industry, which is real major
market for these batteries. The photo market was so small as to be lost in
the consideration until too late. Actually, this is a case of our lack of
representation in washington re: photographer related issues like this,
and lack of national mfger base too
I suspect we will see a lot of internet based importing of batteries from
Germany and mexico in the future to circumvent this ban. But I agree that
Gossen and others should be lauded for their efforts to help their
installed base. Saw wein cells in porter's catalog for $9 last week too.
but these periodic events are like asteriod hits on our base of used
cameras producing extinctions as far as camera usability goes in entire
classes or species of cameras.
For example, I host the bronica classic camera home pages at
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html and have setup a page for those
medium format folks looking for 127 film sources for baby rolleis etc. at
~rmonagha/bron127film.html - but look at how many films have gone obsolete
lately, including EPR25 most recently in 120 format - yeech.
Are electronic cameras going to be another major extinction event
for
silver (or chemical) based film camera users? I suspect so, but plan on
stocking up some big refrigerators before it all ends ;-) ;-0
again, thanks for your comments and useful points - regards - bob
monaghan
=========
obsolescence is not done often in the smart way you suggest; we seem
to
drive right over the cliff and can't use anything from our previous
investment except maybe the filters and camera bag ;-) A pop photogr.
article in 1991/92 in Keppler's SLR column did review the obsolescence
issue, and noted that Nikon worked a way around it, so probably some
others could have, without obsoleting their cameras. Here is a recent
posting on the subject that might provide a few interesting points: ;-)
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998
Interesting reading! Thanks.
Jack Gurner
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998
A great discussion. Here's what I think & know:
If you project the 146k per year decline in SLR sales observed from 1981
through 1993 to 1998, you would conclude that SLR sales should drop to
zero by year's end (i.e., 725k - (5*146k) => 0). Obviously, I don't think
that is true.
It's not. Nothing ever drops down to zero. Just as the world-wide
spread of
disease doesn't decimate the world's population.
How often does the serious amateur photographer buy a new SLR camera on
the average?
In my experience the average user stops using his camera in about 5 years and
sells it in 8.
Am I the only one who is confused by all
the current models of cameras?
Nope and I am a ''hard core'' camera buff.
You would think SLR sales had increased
400%, instead of declining 75%.
A lot of the market that once belonged to the SLR has been taken up by the
new breed of point & shoot 35mm - the type with a built in 35 to 90 zoom
lens. In the ''old days'' most serious cameras had as available accessories
a 35mm lens and a 85mm lens. These usually covered most situations. Then,
when the Nikon and other similar items came along, everyone went to 200mm and
longer or 28mm and shorter lenses as accessories expanded.
But, the majority of photographs are still shot with a ''standard'' lens
(quote
from Amateur Photog. Handbook). The next most useful lense are in the
moderate
wide to moderate tele range and - hence, the rise of the p and s with a zoom
lens.
Are all those features so confusing to use that you are better off
with a simpler camera, or even an all-mechanical one?
Hence the rise of zoom P and S cameras.
do you realize
that most autofocus lenses deliver far less critical sharpness in
practice than a carefully focused manual lens (again, per PopPhoto and
other tests)?
Yep.
Does putting the big
name on the third world imported camera make it just as good as their own
cameras? Who are they fooling, if it isn't you and me?
Like the Pentax P30T that says ''assembled in China'' ?
I suggest that the same is happening in
the camera industry. Better quality cameras means longer times before
purchasing a second SLR at an even higher price.
I can't agree with that. I feel cheaper crappier cameras such as the Canon
Rebel, etc. have high failure rates but, once outside of warranty, the costs
are prohibitive to repair. I know about service & repair. The cameras are
essentially ''dumped'' here but the replacement parts are almost as costly
as the
whole cameras new. It would be cheaper to buy a new camera and keep it
on the
shelf for ''spares'' than the buy the spare parts.
Repair sites have fewer high end cameras to work on, explaining in part
why CLA of even simple professional SLR cameras has exploded upwards in
price.
The majority of cameras repaired are the cheaper models. There are
always more
cheap models of anything than expensive. If the ''base'' of cheap models
being
repaired is ''removed'' due to it being cheaper to replace than repair -
then the
''pro'' cameras are left to ''support'' the repairmen whose expenses
remain the
same and need to be spread out onto the fewer items being repaired.
After the FTC mandated 7 year
period, many parts will no longer be available too. So cameras will become
unrepairable with those fancy electronic circuits now turning into the
camera's Achille's heel.
7 years? I think Mitsubishi isn't following that. Maybe 1 year !
Today's
fancy auto-lenses will become tomorrow's surplus, only useful on a
relative handful of obsolete camera bodies for sale at higher prices.
I said that two months ago on rec.photo.35mm
What about non-U.S. market cameras? Won't these third world markets
support overall camera sales, thereby providing the funds for maintaining
high end cameras and features for the U.S. market without our having to
pay for them? Sorry, but the third world doesn't buy a lot of Nikon F5s.
Where do you get the data for this claim? You should see the photo
''nuts'' in places like Singapore & Hong Kong.
Oddly, the people is so called ''1st world countries'' like England
usually buy the cheaper cameras like Practicas & Pentax.
The numbers of serious
photographers hasn't increased significantly. Far fewer SLRs are being
sold.
The solution lies in finding out why 95%
of all new SLR buyers are not going on to become serious amateur
photographers but are dropping out instead. Unless the SLR photography
Well, this whole discussion was interesting but it was based on a single
premise that serious photography users only use a 35mm camera. The data said
nothing about the growth of other areas of serious photographic interest -
medium format and large format cameras.
How many of these entry level photographers are moving from their cheapie
entry
level cameras directly to serious medium format cameras ? For that
matter, how
many are dumping their cheap entry level cameras for a top level pro 35mm
camera system but buying it used - which would not show up in statistics
of how
many new cameras were sold.
From personal experience, I can say that there has been an
''explosion'' of
interest and photographers moving into medium format camera systems.
Likewise,
there has been significant re-newed interest & growth in large format cameras
such as 4x5 format.
The limited data provided by looking at sales of new 35mm slrs
exclusively did not factor into the equation the other areas of photo
sales. So, the
conclusions draw on those statistics alone are possibly ''hasty'' or ''less
than accurate''.
Joseph.
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998
Hi Joseph - thanks for your many good and insightful comments...
re: not all serious photographers are 35mm slr owners - not the same etc..:
the ''serious photographer/prof.'' numbers are not related to 35mm SLR sales
but estimates by popular photography evidently on market studies etc.
and include 35mm Med format and 4x5 etc plus serious P and S
selling 13 million P and S in one year didn't expand those serious photogr.
numbers, nor did selling 50 million over the previous 8-10 years - too bad
re: medium format and large format
another reader response noted that there has been a huge decline in sales of
Med. format and especially large format stuff and that many mfgers
I run the extensive Bronica 6x6 classic camera home pages at
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html - also shoot hassy, rolleiflex
3.5f, kowa 6, and a relatively new 4x5 calumet. I am
told the explosion in hassy lens prices for example is due to the low
sales and high unit costs as MF sales overall decline. We did just drop
EPR25 in med. format, right? Expect to see other films get dropped too as
sales decline. Since that worries me, that's why I want to sound a
warning ;-) I also list the last few sources of 127 film on my website at
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bron127film.html, and don't want to do one
for 120 film in the future ;-)
re: third world sales:
re: camera repair - I think we agree, basically, the cheaper cameras are
too pricey to repair out of warranty, cheaper to buy a used working model
making camera repairs harder to find, more costly for those
''professional'' cameras left which might be worth fixing; but lack of
parts is a killer; I currently have a Nikon FE lacking part for shutter
to fix, local nikon repairman says its a coaster - yeech ;-(
re: used camera buys - good point indeed, but again, the lack of growth
in pop photo's serious photographer counts over the 1981-93 decade
suggests that this factor isn't very major. It just means more dropouts
from the new SLR buyer group in the model.
probably I am most wierded out by the 96% of 35mm film market is color
print and only 4% for rest of it - that is where I shoot, color slides
and B and W, and I wonder how much lower it can get and still be economical?
In any case, thanks for your insightful comments and ideas, perhaps we
can get some facts from makers or pop photogr to address these issues and
maybe get everybody involved in keeping serious photography alive? ;-)
regards and happy 1998 - bob monaghan
From: Steve Painter [email protected]
Robert,
Right on with the observations........I'm 56 years old and your observations
are mine also. Very few kids want to get a hobby like we did years ago.
Maybe TV is the culprit. Anyway, enjoyed your piece.
regards,
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 14:11:03
Of course, the demise of photography as a serious hobby has to do with the
absence of another ''Blow Up'' motion picture. In the culture of the 1960s
many
young adults identified with the alienated photographer. I think if you chart
sales of enlargers, SLRs and the like, you will find that these accellerated
greatly after the release of ''Blow Up''.
Then too, is the dwindling of the post WWII hobby phenomenon. Millions of
Americans served in WWII and essentially had several years of their
(adolescent) lives truncated. In the 1950s to 60s, there was a tremendous
interest in hobbies. HAM radio operators were abundant. The average dad
could work on the car, repair the washer, replace broken windows, and made
contact prints from his 620 roll film camera in the basement using
chemicals and papers he bought at the drugstore. Today, the average
American can barely relight the gas water heater, often calling the gas
company to do this.
As for the cost of equipment today, I feel that photography is more
affordable than at any time in history. Consider that in the 1930s serious
equipment sold for $125 or so. That would be like $3000 today and back in
the 1930s, it would be a simple mecanical camera like a Rolleiflex or
Rolleicord with no exposure system or lens coating technology.
Even in the golden age of photography in the 1960s when you could find
enlargers for sale at the supermarket, an SLR typically sold for $250 (there
were no big discounts then, 10 to 20% discount was considered generous). In
1968 you could buy a house for $15,000 and a new Volkswagen Beetle sold for
around $900, if I recall.
Indeed, if you could travel in a time machine, I'm sure you could find any
number of photographers who would willingly swap their 1954 Leica M3 for your
$99 Olympus point and shoot. Back in the 1960s, electronic strobe units sold
for around $100 and now you get these included with the point and shoot.
Regards,
Charlie [email protected]
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998
CharlesW99 wrote:
Of course, the demise of photography as a serious hobby has to do with the
absence of another ''Blow Up'' motion picture. In the culture of the
1960s many
young adults identified with the alienated photographer. I think if you
chart
sales of enlargers, SLRs and the like, you will find that these
accellerated
greatly after the release of ''Blow Up''.
good point, maybe what we need is a series of movies like that ;-)
seriously the scuba diving biz tried this approach with some success and
sea hunt style shows are out there, couldn't something similar work in
photography?
I think hobbies have declined, as you noted (I am a ham W5VC and amateur
astronomer, bought a microscope this year, have built over 30 computers
etc. plus built over seven hacked lenses for my bronica cameras - see
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html and lens hacker hall of fame pages
As for the cost of equipment today, I feel that photography is more
affordable
than at any time in history. Consider that in the 1930s serious
equipment sold
for $125 or so. That would be like $3000 today and back in the 1930s,
it would
be a simple mecanical camera like a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord with no
exposure
system or lens coating technology.
Even in the golden age of photography in the 1960s when you could find
enlargers for sale at the supermarket, an SLR typically sold for $250
(there
were no big discounts then, 10 to 20% discount was considered
generous). In
1968 you could buy a house for $15,000 and a new Volkswagen Beetle sold for
around $900, if I recall.
Indeed, if you could travel in a time machine, I'm sure you could find any
number of photographers who would willingly swap their 1954 Leica M3
for your
$99 Olympus point and shoot. Back in the 1960s, electronic strobe units
sold
for around $100 and now you get these included with the point and shoot.
Regards,
Charlie [email protected]
very good points, Charlie. At the low end, I think this continues to be a
true side effect of microchips in cameras, but at high end, you are
seeing prices of serious prof. photogr. equipment explode past inflation
(Hassy being a prime example in lenses), and while my F2 cost less than
twice what my nikkormat backup cost, today's top of the line costs seven
times (for Canon EOS vs. Rebel per pop photogr. article) for very small
differences.
but if it is cheaper, easier, better now than before, what can we do to
make more people take up serious photography? Why are sales spiraling
down and down?
another reply noted that serious photogr are over 55 on average and dying
off fast - fits my camera show experiences too, few young folks out
there, so what will it take to get 'em interested? Wish I knew, but as
far as I can see, the industry isn't making much of an effort to solve
this problem or get the 13 million P and S folks to get into more serious
photography efforts (sales of $9.95 pop photogr. magazine are flat etc.)
in any case, thanks for your many insightful and interesting comments
and best regards for 1998 - bob monaghan
From: CharlesW99 [email protected]
In a message dated 98-01-01 19:31:25 EST, you write:
but if it is cheaper, easier, better now than before, what can we
do to
make more people take up serious photography? Why are sales spiraling
down and down?
another reply noted that serious photogr are over 55 on average and dying
off fast - fits my camera show experiences too, few young folks out
there, so what will it take to get 'em interested? Wish I knew, but as
far as I can see, the industry isn't making much of an effort to solve
this problem or get the 13 million P&S folks to get into more serious
photography efforts (sales of $9.95 pop photogr. magazine are flat etc.)
Another observation, Robert, is the relative increase in work hours spent
just to support the essentials of room and board. It is true that people
are eating out more, but I think folks these days are just plain exhausted
with work. Back in the early 60s, we had a boarding house across the
street and one of the boarders was able to do quite well, buying a new car
(a VW). He also had enough time for photography (he had a Rolleicord and
took transparencies; he didn't have a projector and would hold these in
front of his window to look at-I thought it was pretty weird at the time).
The point is, even at $1.00 an hour mininum wage back then, you could
live in
a decent neighborhood (in a boarding house for perhaps $50 a month),
afford a
new car, and have enough time to enjoy a hobby. How many 20 year olds out
there who are making $1000 a month (minimum wage today), take home is perhaps
$700 a month, and rent is typically (now) $450 to 600 a month, can afford a
hobby after putting in the overtime to pay for food and transportation? No
wonder there's such a problem with crime and drugs!
When I think of these things, it makes me glad I'm not 20 today!
Charlie
From [email protected] Thu Jan 1 19:05:49 CST 1998
I think that the earlier figure of huge SLR sales can be explained as
being artificially high for 2 reasons.
1. Photography became trendy and it was a cool thing to be into it. Men,
in particular bought cameras to wear as male jewelry. I commonly saw
tourists, esp. American men wearing 2 Nikons around their necks etc.
2. There were no Point and Shoots of much use.
These two figures inflated the sales of SLRs.
People should not get so hung up on things being obsolete, unrepairable
etc. Do they want to lug Nikon F2s around on their holidays? (I have 4 of
them!). DO they want to change lenses every 2 minutes.
Let's face it, modern zoom lenses are very very good, make life easier
etc.
I've owned way more than 100 cameras in my time, am a "serious" amateur,
whatever that is, shoot a lot of slide, have printed B&W for 20 years and
colour for about 4, and the best camera I've ever come across is the
Olympus IS3000 (IS3). It's got a fabulous lens, a mighty flash and is
ultra convenient. I've shot some very admired photography on it and would
sooner lug that around than my Nikon F2s etc.
It's not like it was in the old days. No. It's better.
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998
thanks for your response and note - I got a number of direct followups too
I agree that today's cameras are much better value for the money too, esp.
for entry level cameras (but find high end too pricey for benefits). But
it is disconcerting that literally millions of point and shoot cameras
were sold without expanding the number of serious amateur photographers of
all stripes - eg sales of photo books and magazines still trend downward
etc.
your points on cameras as male jewelry are well taken too ;-)
others noted that the under 55 age group numbers in photography are huge
decline, and oldsters are dying off, lack of hobby growth in all areas,
blame TV (next, it will be the internet ;-)
I also shoot nikon F2 photomic and F plus 3 nikkormats as well as 6x6
bronicas, hassy, kowa, rolleiflex tlr and 4x5 calumet.
In any case, I would like to see mfgers address how to promote serious
photography and achieve a small but significant growth in numbers and a
stable marketplace...
otherwise, I think we will see photography spiral down into a hobby of
mostly old men with the serious $$ to afford the nearly hand-crafted
serious cameras of the future, with everybody else using either P&S or
more likely disposable cameras.
again, thanks for your interest and thoughtful response and points -
regards and happy 1998 - bob monaghan
From [email protected] Fri Jan 2 22:56:15 CST 1998
Serious amateur photography?????? When I got really serious I switched to
120 format. Now I've added digital cameras to my repetoire. Do I still
shot 35mm? Sure :-) Its good, and when I just want to play, 35mm is the
logical choice. For specialized work, like macro or astro, 35mm is the
logical choice. 35mm is but one set of available tools and will be around
for a long time to come. Yes, its growth heyday is history. On day,
chemical based photography will be history. Then all my cameras will be
worth a fortune as museum pieces [g].
No email address because of the junk mail ... damn spammers.
From [email protected] Fri Jan 2 22:58:27 CST 1998
Robert,
It is a mistake to equate declining sales of SLRs with a waning
enthusiasm for serious amateur photography. Typewriter sales are down
also, but that doesn't mean that everyone is about to stop typing.
Sales of 1957 Chevys are down, but this doesn't spell the end for auto
enthusiasts.
I think one would do better to define a "serious amateur" by how much
money they spend to produce images, rather than what kind of equipment
they own. This should not only include camera hardware, film and
processing - but also scanners and the computer software required to
publish images within the digital domain.
[Ed. note: the definition of serious amateur by PopPhoto cited in the
article above did not limit itself to 35mm SLR owners, see notes
below]
In the bygone era, the goal of the serious amateur was to produce an
image good enough to win a photo contest, or get published in a
magazine, or sell to a calendar publisher. This was the tangible
proof that his skills were equal to a professional photographer, and
the reward for his study, experimentation, and expense.
The computer age has given photographers a new venue for public
display of their images - the Internet. If a magazine won't publish
your picture - who cares? You can now put it on your own home page
for all the world to see and marvel at.
Modern cameras are designed to make irrelevant all knowledge of using
f-stops to emphasize depth of field, shutter speeds to depict motion
or freeze action, and film speeds to emphasize highlight or shadow.
Modern cameras are designed to give good photographic results to the
operator who has no understanding of the principles of photography
whatsoever. This is tantamount to the electronic calculator
accurately solving math problems, so that the school kid need no
longer memorize the multiplication tables.
The modern 35mm camera is a computer, which only requires that the
operator point it in the right direction to capture an image of
whatever interests them. And this auto-everything "point and shoot"
design envelopes the spectrum of amateur camera types, from the
disposable single use cameras right on up to the Nikon F5. The more
expensive cameras may offer more programming options, operational
modes and buttons to push, but the intention of the design remains the
same - no knowledge required, just point and shoot. And if anything
"creative" is desired, this can be accomplished after the image has
been scanned into the home computer.
Since now even moderately priced P and S cameras are equiped with zoom
lenses, the lens interchangability feature of SLR cameras is obviated.
Since most SLR users nowadays favor zoom lenses over the primes, the
only real distinction between the P and S and the SLR is the manner of
viewing the scene. The pictures produced by an auto-everything, zoom
lens equipped P and S will be virtually indistinguishable from an
auto-everything, zoom lens equipped SLR. But while the picture
quality may be the same, the price, bulk and weight are not. The
reasons for a typical amateur buying a modern SLR are the same reasons
one might choose to buy a pair of cowboy boots - the belief they will
look cool when seen with this in public.
I think the bottom line is that the capability to digitally manipulate
images has made ''creative'' photography obsolete. And auto-everything
technology has provided P and S cameras which meet the requirements of
anyone who wants to produce good images without the need to learn a
bunch of outdated concepts. Those who want to learn and apply skills
in camera operation can buy a Hasselblad, while those not in love with
manipulating hardware will practice their ''serious amateur''
photography on their computer.
We should consider the 35mm SLR a blip on the scales of time and
evolution. It was a transitional icon, which had a major cultural
impact for over 40 years. But in due course has been replaced by
video camcorders, computer automation and digital imaging. But
personally, I'm not giving up my manual focus Konica FT-1 until it is
pried from my cold, dead fingers.
Gene Windell
From [email protected] Fri Jan 2 22:58:41 CST 1998
Modern cameras are designed to make irrelevant all knowledge of using
f-stops to emphasize depth of field, shutter speeds to depict motion
or freeze action, and film speeds to emphasize highlight or shadow.
Modern cameras are designed to give good photographic results to the
operator who has no understanding of the principles of photography
whatsoever.
Not all. Contax SLR's certainly are not designed to do this. Nikon, Canon,
Minolta and Pentax also make ''modern'' cameras that allow the
photographer to
have serious control over these factors. It is up to the photographer.
- TEA
From [email protected] Fri Jan 2 22:58:48 CST 1998
I think the bottom line is that the capability to digitally manipulate
images has made ''creative'' photography obsolete.
Come now. Isn't this an overstatement. I doubt you would really seriously
stand behind this statement.
- TEA
From [email protected] Fri Jan 2 22:59:07 CST 1998
Gene Windell ([email protected]) wrote:
: Robert,
: It is a mistake to equate declining sales of SLRs with a waning
: enthusiasm for serious amateur photography. Typewriter sales are down
: also, but that doesn't mean that everyone is about to stop typing.
: Sales of 1957 Chevys are down, but this doesn't spell the end for auto
: enthusiasts.
: I think one would do better to define a ''serious amateur'' by how much
: money they spend to produce images, rather than what kind of equipment
: they own. This should not only include camera hardware, film and
Actually, the term ''serious amateur'' refers to skill and experiece sans
payment for their services
Where did you get the idea the it refered to the amount of money spent?
From [email protected] Fri Jan 2 22:59:32 CST 1998
Gene Windell wrote
I think the bottom line is that the capability to digitally manipulate
images has made ''creative'' photography obsolete. And auto-everything
technology has provided P and S cameras which meet the requirements of
anyone who wants to produce good images without the need to learn a
bunch of outdated concepts. Those who want to learn and apply skills
in camera operation can buy a Hasselblad, while those not in love with
manipulating hardware will practice their ''serious amateur''
photography on their computer.
Gene Windell
As an amateur photographer and also a computer professional I am well aware
of the quality of images that can be produced by the ''scanner'' and
''computer
printer'' duo. I also think the ''amateurs'' of today are missing a lot. They
would only need to once compare the quality of their ''electronic'' images
with an exhibition of Ansel Adams enlargements to see the difference. The
problem is that most ''amateurs'' have only their friends sloppily taken, 1
hour photo processed prints to compare to. It is so sad that most of them
will never realize what they are missing. Time marches on.
John Austin
From [email protected] Fri Jan 2 23:00:32 CST 1998
3. Hobbies seem to be a thing of the past. Very few people that I
know under the age of 40 have any outside interest other than TV,
computer games, sports, hunting, tearing all over hell running their
kids to this and that, alcohol, and like my daughter - I just want to
party. I do not know anyone under the age of 20 that has a hobby.
[snip]
Don't know any teens with hobbies huh. Well now you do. My name is
Brad, i am sixteen years old and my hobby is photography. My point is
that most of you're post was blaming young people for the decline in
photography. example:
1. Young people entering the workforce are not willing to go through
the training phase that is required for professional excellence.
This is nothing more than a steryotype that bitter old folks made up. I
am extremly insulted by that comment, no matter what experiences it is
based upon. You cannot go about branding an entire age group because
the actions of a few.
Out of curiosoty, how many people under 20 do you know? I don't mean
just know what they look like or there name, but really know them. If i
go to the same party your daughter goes to do you assume that i am
unwilling to ''go through the training phase that is required for
professional excellence'', or that I have no hobbies other than ''TV,
computer games, sports, hunting, alcohol, or partying''. And exactly
what is wrong with sports being a hobby?
Think about it,
From [email protected] Fri Jan 2 23:00:45 CST 1998
Jim Williams [email protected] wrote:
....[CUT].......
Thanks for this extremely well constructed analysis. I particularly
enjoyed reading your comments on the opportunities given by the Internet
for creators in most fields: I would agree that "image" as a creative
activity will get a massive boost when bandwidth and archiving media
becomes more efficient and more available than it is now for the
mainstream users....
From [email protected] Fri Jan 2 23:00:53 CST 1998
FortunkoC wrote:
become depressed every time my results come back from a 0ne Hour Photo
or similar establishment. Lately, even some ''good'' labs have
disappointed me.
Try this, Chris: If your local newspaper doesn't develop their own
film, find out which lab they use. I have done this with consistent,
excellent results.
--
From [email protected] Sat Jan 3 22:42:32 CST 1998
Lovely, but why do you equate ''serious amateur'' with those working on
computers?
Most ''serious amateur'' photographers that I know hate computers,
digital and video camera with a vengeance!
For the purist, the though of a scanned image is heresy , punishable
by burning at the stake.
Lovely, anyway.
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998
I haven't had the time to read all of the numerous replies to this
interesting thread, but let me add my two cents at the risk of repeating
the points others may have made:
1)If we compare SLR sales now with those in 1981 we have to remember that
in that era--late 60s throught, say early 80s--the photojournalist was a
cultural icon, and many people who were by no means serious amateurs hung
SLRs around their necks and used them to take snapshots.
2)A more apt comparison might be with say mid-sixties figures, when most
people opting to go beyond a Brownie Hawkeye like camera bought a simple
TLR (a Yashica, a Rikoflex), or a simple rangefinder with
non-interchangeable lens. Most people shot pictures with fixed focus box
cameras, which in those days were beginning to use smaller film formats.
Point and shoot cameras produce better pictures than most of those
cameras, even given the relatively poor quality of processing most people
put up with. IN other words, were there really that many serious amateurs
around in the past, and did owning an SLR in 1981 make a person a member
of that tribe? In highschool, in the late 50s, I can think of two other
kids besides myself who did some darkroom work at home (although more took
the photography course offered by the school). Not many out of a school of
several thousand.
3)Seems to me that there has been a trend lately back toward medium and
especially large format photography. On a trip through the Southwestern US
this last summer, I think I saw more young guys (40 or under, let us say)
setting up 4 x 5 field cameras than I saw with SLRs. IN the 60s there were
no magazines devoted to the use of view cameras--now there is at least
one.
Just my two cents on the issue. Seems to me that serious photography is
alive and well, and although most people shoot color negative film (not
necessarily a sign of not being serious), both Kodak and Fuji have come
out with some awfully good transparency films lately, some of which are
sold in Walmarts and K-marts, so there must be a market out there.
T. Galt
From [email protected] Sat Jan 3 22:42:47 CST 1998
Tony Galt wrote:
Just my two cents on the issue. Seems to me that serious photography is
alive and well, and although most people shoot color negative film (not
necessarily a sign of not being serious), both Kodak and Fuji have come
out with some awfully good transparency films lately, some of which are
sold in Walmarts and K-marts, so there must be a market out there.
What does this have to do with it? Plenty of serious photographers
shoot with color negative film.
--
From [email protected] Sat Jan 3 22:43:23 CST 1998
The latter part is reasonably valid. The only new equipment I bought in a
year was a new ballhead, a Domke J-300 long lens case, and some reflectors
on sale for $90. Everything else, including a 300/2.8, was purchased second
hand. With excellent quality and prices averaging less than half of what
B&H would want for something new, why not?
--- Noel
From [email protected] Sun Jan 4 19:03:38 CST 1998
Cyber Ghost [email protected] wrote:
: Wrong!
: SLR's did not eclipse Rangefinders. Rangfinders were developed for a
: different 'Solution' = see how computer speak is backward compatible.
: SLR's and colour film had been invented way back, the problem was
: bringing an acceptable 'solution' to the general public.
Twist your words however you wish, but before
the 1960's [+/-], SLRs were not general purpose
practical machines. About that time the Nikon
F, Contaflex and Contarex, Minolta SR, Miranda,
Pentax, etc combined auto-iris, pentaprism, and
a few other conveneiences to create a versatile
yet convenient genre of SLR. Keppler's ''SLR''
column began about then. At that time it was
all about ''the transition''.
Before that time, SLRs were versatile but slow
to use, and relatively expensive. The M-Leica
was not yet a collector's bauble, and it faced
three viable competitors in the interchangeable
lens RF game, all of which were cheaper but not
exactly working-class toys. Rollfilm folders
and TLRs were available at every level of price
and sophistication, but the 35mm leaf-shuttered
RF [or guess-focus RF look-alike] was the most
popular general use camera, for snapshooter and
amatuer alike. ''Serious'' amateurs has Graphics,
Ciroflexes, Ikontas, Exactas, Leica-or-similar,
etc. But the RF 35 was the main item, whether
Leica-type or leaf-shuttered wannabee.
The reign of the RF 35 was steady until SLR 35s
began to offer equal convenience at prices not
too ridiculous [compared to earlier]. The TTL
metered Topcon arrived, compatible with a long
established lens mount, offering auto-iris and
full aperture metering, modular finders, etc at
at a time when major RF 35s were still without
TTL or even coupled meters. Nikon discontinued
their Contax-type RF line a several years after
their ''F'' SLR intro'd. Canon dropped their M39
Leica-mount RFs at abut the same time.
In Darwinian fashion, the genre of convenient
SLRs proliferated while stagnating RFs, TLRs,
and folders steadily disappeared. The above
happened. Maybe this does not constitute an
eclipse of the RF by the SLR, but it happened.
Maybe the proliferation of EOS and Maxxum etc,
while Canon FD and Minolta SRT etc disappear,
is not the eclipse of manual focus by AF SLRs,
but it has happened.
In the mid-1960s, Pop and Modern [magazines]
had a parade of cover stories such as ''RF or
SLR, is the SLR the Wave of the Future ?''.
In the late 1980s the same front covers ran
their ''Manual or Auto Focus'' versions of the
1960s ''RF or SLR'' stories. Eclipse or not,
these things happened. You can go to your
library and see it yourself [and then put it
on the Web for the library-challenged].
David Rosen [email protected]
From [email protected] Sun Jan 4 22:16:07 CST 1998
Wow, I logged on expecting to see something on the lines of
''My Nikon can kick your Canon's ass''
and what do I get? Some civilized discussion! Say what?! This is so
cool I have to go to the bathroom! Thanks for restoring my faith in
rec.35!
I too was a bit irked by the bashing of the younger generation, since I
guess I belong to it. As a 19 year old madly devoted to photography, I
just can't agree with the notion that the ''young people'' don't care about
learning any sort of meaningful hobbies. I understand your point though.
Television has that unfortunate way of doing all the thinking for you.
Whenever the TV wants to make us sad - hey, just crank up the fuzz
factor, add some slo-mo tearjerkers, pour on some swelling, sentimental
muzak, and hey - you've got me feeling genuinely sad, even though I'm
often unsure what it is I'm supposed to be all choked up about. Same goes
for happiness - just fill the tube with ''all sorts of jazzy shit,'' as Kurt
Vonnegut would call it.
The popularity of the p+s camera shouldn't necessarily be cause for
concern for the ''serious'' amateur. I've seen some killer shots taken from
those little things - shots that blow my expensive SLR shots out of the
water. As it's been repeatedly stated - what really matters is the person
behind the camera, after all. I am still concerned about the number of
dimwits out there, however. I could go on for a long time about people
taking flash pics of fireworks, or expecting their built in flash to reach
across a stadium, or people who shoot shoot a whole roll's worth before
realizing there isn't any film inside, and so on. I remained puzzled at
the amount of ignorance out there regarding photography. For the simple
act of carrying around a 300 f/4, I get stuff like ''gee, that's a big
lens'' or ''are you a professional photographer?'' That really makes me
laugh, cos the closest I could come to being mentioned in the same
sentence as ''professional photographer'' would be something like
Unlike a professional photographer, I.....
Well, hey, at least it's a start. So really, I don't think you folks need
to be that worried. After all, so much about photography depends on being
in the right place at the right time, no? Seems like with the number of
p+s cameras out there, someone's bound to get the right shot in there
somewhere. Some of my shots that I like best are the ones I never planned
to take. Yes yes, I realize that most good shots take time, planning, and
vision. If any of you can spare some of that, send it my way.
Tim
From [email protected] Sun Jan 4 22:17:02 CST 1998
Gene Windell writes:
the modern 35mm camera is a computer, which only requires that the operator
point it in the right direction to capture an image of whatever interests
them. And this auto-everything ''point and shoot'' design envelopes the
spectrum of amateur camera types, from the disposable single use cameras
right on up to the Nikon F5. The more expensive cameras may offer more
programming options, operational modes and buttons to push, but the intention
of the design remains the same - no knowledge required, just point and shoot.
And if anything ''creative'' is desired, this can be accomplished after the
image has been scanned into the home computer.
You mean all I need to do is sell my Nikon F5 and go get an el-cheapo $100
point and shoot? I too can have great pictures? You mean I can scan in a poor
photo that is out of focus, has no depth of field control, that is poorly
composed, and then spend a few minutes on the computer and it looks like a
National Geographic photo? Wow! Why I am I spending all this money on photo
gear, slide scanners, printers, etc.? I need to go tell all these fashion
magazines that they can get rid of the fancy photographers that use all this
expensive equipment to take their photos, because I can just point a $100
camera at their model, scan the resulting picture into the computer, and make
it look like a million bucks! Just think of all the money I could save them!
SERIOUS tongue in cheek!!
the only real distinction between the P and S and the SLR is the manner of
viewing the scene. The pictures produced by an auto-everything, zoom
lens equipped P&S will be virtually indistinguishable from an
auto-everything, zoom lens equipped SLR.
You know, I spent 4 hours the other morning lugging around 20 pounds worth of
Nikon F5 with a 300mm 2.8 lens and a tripod in the freezing cold trying to
photograph a 12-point buck. I could have tossed that behemoth away and just
used a Samsung P and S zoom to take the pictures. That would have worked
real well
in the early morning light just before daybreak. I could have just pointed it
at the buck, taken one picture, not worried about depth of field or camera
shake, then fixed everthing in the computer later. I bet Field and Stream
would love to hear about this!!!
The reasons for a typical amateur buying a modern SLR are the same reasons
one might choose to buy a pair of cowboy boots - the belief they will
look cool when seen with this in public.
Oh, but I forgot. I wanted to look cool in front of the all the ''public'',
which consisted of a few crows, squirrels, and occasional rabbit and bluejay.
Oh yes, I am sure the buck was REALLY impressed that I had an F5.
The people who saw my pictures later couldn't care less about what equipment I
took the photos with. Not a single person has asked me what photo gear I used
to take those pictures. In fact, I can't think of over a half dozen people who
have ever asked me what equipment I use. Most just look in amazement at the
good photographs and sometimes wonder why they can't get those with their point
and shoot. They probably figure I have this expensive camera gear and that is
why my photo's look good (it wouldn't be because I study, experiment, practice,
work on composition, light manipulation, etc.)
I think SLR photography will be around for a long time. Even though you can
take good pictures with simple cameras such as point and shoots, a good SLR
gives you a lot greater creative control and lens choices. In computer imaging
(which I do a fair amount of) you still need a very good image to start with if
you want to make a memorable computer image. Digital photography still abides
by the old computer rule, ''garbage in, garbage out''.
James Pratt
From [email protected] Mon Jan 5 19:43:45 CST 1998
From: John Austin [email protected]
The
problem is that most ''amateurs'' have only their friends sloppily taken, 1
hour photo processed prints to compare to. It is so sad that most of them
will never realize what they are missing. Time marches on.
John Austin
Perhaps it is a bit off topic, but no one has brought up the ''new wave'' of
''photographers'' who operate out of K-Mart, Sears, & J.C. Penneys making
''108 portraits for $8.99''.
The general public is duped into believing that the results of these so called
''pros'' are true ''quality'' photos.
If people are comparing their result with their P and S camera with the
''work'' produced by the K-Mart ''pros'' - well, no wonder !
Joseph.
From [email protected] Mon Jan 5 19:45:22 CST 1998
I recently attended the Nikon School in Chicago. Not much I didn't already
know - I just went because they put on a fun show. Out of the 200 or so people
attending, only about half a dozen looked under 25 years of age. There were a
lot of older people. I would guess an average age of about 40-45 for the
group. If this is representative of the demographics of serious amateur
photographers, then this hobby is definitely in decline.
Speaking as a 40 something who recently got back into photography I
can assure you that raising two small kids in ones 20's and 30's is
enough to drain both one's enegy and pocket book. Now that my kids
are a bit more independent and our salaries are hitting the ''big
earning'' years I'm back into photography big time. In other words, I
now have the time and money to enjoy it.
From [email protected] Mon Jan 5 19:45:39 CST 1998
I had a guy ask me to still frame him with his video camera on top of
the World Trade Center observation deck. Pretty stupid of you ask me.
He'd be much better off with a 35mm point and shoot.
I see a fair number of people recording completely static subjects, such as
quilts hanging in shows or mountains in the Tetons, with video cameras,
which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
From [email protected] Mon Jan 5 19:46:04 CST 1998
Ron Goodman wrote in message ...
I see a fair number of people recording completely static subjects, such as
quilts hanging in shows or mountains in the Tetons, with video cameras,
which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
It doesn't to me, either. But nonetheless, the important fact is that these
folks are carrying video recorders and not SLR cameras. It doesn't matter
that many don't make best use of the recorders. It would be interesting to
see the results of a survey that polled video camera owners along the lines
of, ''If the video camera did not exist, would you have purchased a high end
35mm camera.'' That wouldn't be the actual question, of course. But the
point is, the odds are that what? 75% of video camera sales came and come
right out of the hide of high-end film camera sales. I'd bet on that.
Cheers.
Don Forsling [email protected]
From [email protected] Tue Jan 6 00:34:54 CST 1998
18 years ago I had a nice am/pro photo business. And made a fair living at
it. Got too busy and found I was playing the catch-up tech game. The tale
was wagging the dog. Better photos, better equip.? No. Better photos ,
better photographer. Well I didn't know that and dumped all my equip. (a
studio and a half) and haven't touched a camera since. I have one old Pent,
spotmatic body, no lenses.
Now that I'm older and wiser (?) I hope to get back into it.
Just my thoughts.
BMc
From [email protected] Tue Jan 6 00:39:15 CST 1998
My impression is that young people (under 25) are at least as dedicated to
work, school, and hobbies as was my age group (I'm 37). However, their
particular interests are different.
....
Jeff
Okay, I confess: I'm 26, and I like photography.
While I'm no where near being a serious amateur, I do believe that
photography
represents a life-long hobby, and deserve much dedication and study.
I'm currently in the market for my own SLR (after using relatives' camaras for
years). Photography definitely takes it's toll on the pocket, especially for
someone in my income bracket, who also happens to enjoy other 'expensive'
hobbies such as golf and cycling. Alas, life is not cheap.
enough gibberish. I'd appreciate any wise words or advice from any of you
'serious amateurs'. thank you, and good night :)
Frank, CA
ps. for an interesting story on computers and photography, read the 1/5/98 LA
Times article on Bill Atkinson (Ex-Apple programmer) and his lifelong pursuit
of photography. Mr. Atkinson has a website that serves as his virtual gallery:
www.natureimages.com let me know what you think.
From [email protected] Tue Jan 6 21:17:58 CST 1998
P and S cameras are not necessarily bad. I use an expensive RF camera, but
become
depressed every time my results come back from a 0ne Hour Photo or similar
establishment. Lately, even some ''good'' labs have disappointed me.
Photography is a complicated process that requires care and process control at
every step, particularly in small format.
Chris
From [email protected] Tue Jan 6 21:18:14 CST 1998
Several posters noted that photography is numerically an older (over 55
per
one poster) centered hobby - which suggests we need to do a lot more
to
involve and recruit younger recruits. One simple example might be a
program
to solicit tax deductible camera donations from no longer
interested photo
dropouts, and recycle them to younger users. Is there
any 501(C3) or similar
charity which is doing this, and if not, can't we
create one? Maybe the
donated collectible cameras could be sold (reducing
high prices of today's
market?) and turned into needed accessories and
film and processing for
these new student recruits? Others might be able
to donate some time
teaching a few how-to-do-it sessions etc? A high
school oriented program
might be just the thing to get us growing again?
The Boy Scouts of America has an Explorer thing for photography. I plan to get
involved and sponsor a local group.
From [email protected] Tue Jan 6 21:18:43 CST 1998
I would have thought that 'Serious Amateurs' would have indeed
embraced the digital computer stuff.
It is just that the guys I know don't like the stuff. I must be way
out of touch.
And I agree I also have found a new lease of life for my old
negatives, many I had not actually seen because I never had enough
paper, chemistry or time.
I don't know where I fit into this spectrum, because I'm both a grizzled
traditionalist (I lean toward grainy black-and-white films, I've filed out
the negative carrier on my enlarger to get rugged black borders on my
prints, and my favorite camera is a circa-1959 Canon VI-T rangefinder) and
somebody whose job involves working with digital imaging every day (I
started long before the dawn of Photoshop, back when it took a $150,000
system to play, so the novelty of pushing pixels has pretty much worn off
for me by now.)
I guess you could say that I've embraced "digital computer stuff," although
as far as I'm concerned it still starts with a negative or slide and a
scanner -- the digital cameras just aren't there yet in terms of image
quality. And I know that the prints I get from my Epson Stylus Photo
printer (or the hellishly expensive Xerox unit we have at the office) still
don't match the quality of those I make with my trusty ol' Omega enlarger.
(Incidentally, re the discussion of Photoshop's dodge-and-burn tools: you
guys do realize, don't you, that they only lighten or darken the existing
pixels -- they can't actually bring out more information in the image, the
way you can when you dodge or burn a photographic print.) For me, if I want
a hang-on-the-wall print (especially from a b&w negative) conventional
printing is still the only way to go that leaves me fully satisfied.
BUT... while digital photography still leaves me a bit cold as a
*photographic* or *printing* medium, it's absolutely great as a
*reproduction* medium. If you start with a good scan and use good paper,
the little Stylus Photo's prints are at least as good as the best-quality
halftone reproductions -- you even get "stochastic screening" (hot topic in
the graphic arts), duotone capabilities, etc.
What this means to me is that now, when I want to send a friend a note, I
don't go to Barnes & Noble and buy printed notecards with somebody else's
photos on them -- I print out my own cards with MY photos on them. I
"publish" my own limited-edition bookmarks, Christmas cards, party
invitations, and other stuff whenever I've got an appropriate image and
somebody to send or give it to. The quality is impressive, my friends are
suitably impressed, and my ego acquires a pleasant glow. (And let's admit
it -- that glow is one of the things we hope for from our hobby, isn't it?
It's very noble to admire Atget, tirelessly making photographs and putting
them away in boxes, unseen by anyone -- but I'd still rather have my best
pictures *appreciated* by at least a small circle of discerning friends,
wouldn't you?)
Combine this "self-publishing" capability with the ability to distribute
your images to a (potential) worldwide audience on the Internet, and you've
got an unprecedented outlet for serious photographers to give their work a
public ''life.'' (What's more, there are so many ROTTEN photographs on the
Internet that I'm convinced good ones stand out even more by comparison!)
Digital *imaging* may or may not be a long-term threat to ''serious''
photography, but I'm convinced that digital *distribution* will be a good
thing for us.
We have to have enough confidence in photography as a medium to believe
that if people see good photographs, they will come to appreciate good
photography -- and at least a small percentage of those will want to learn
to CREATE good photography!
From [email protected] Wed Jan 7 18:46:42 CST 1998
Okay, I confess: I'm 26, and I like photography.
While i'm no where near being a serious amateur, I do believe that photography
represents a life-long hobby, and deserve much dedication and study.
I'm currently in the market for my own SLR (after using relatives' camaras for
years). Photography definitely takes it's toll on the pocket, especially for
someone in my income bracket, who also happens to enjoy other 'expensive'
hobbies such as golf and cycling. Alas, life is not cheap.
enough gibberish. i'd appreciate any wise words or advice from any of you
'serious amateurs'. thank you, and good night :)
You are 100% correct. I think the problem with too many people that start
out with SLR photography is they expect it all right away. I started out
with a a couple old manual East German cameras, moved to a Spotmatic using
little else other than a 50 mm lens (thank goodness Pentax makes
affordable lenses that are within the price range of the a newbie). I
learned a lot of the basics there and moved up to K-mount Pentax (P30T)
and begain to slowly aquaire quality lenses with that system. And by
going slow, doing a lot of reading and asking a lot of questions I've
developed into a pretty decent photographer-not to say I still don't have
a lot more growth yet. What I have seen with my friends and photography is
they buy a sexy camera (super zoom this or ultra fast that) take some
photos with it (ok, snap shots-auto everything) and get board or just
never develop themselves into anything more than that. I can't tell you
how many people I know go ga-ga over gizmos (''Hey, this is a professional
camera'') and don't really realize *why* they shelled out a fortune for
their instrument in the first place. Personally, many of these people
would probably be just as well off with an APS or compact; just isn't sexy
enough.
Some other tid bits when I was a starter-I thought I should always cut
courners by developing film at the cheapest place around (BIG mistake) and
my other fatal flaw was I would leave film in the camera, often for
months, because I hadn't finished the roll. You can guess what that did
to film in the Texas heat!
Good luck.
Doug
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 18:02:31
Hello. I stumbled on your Web site and read your article together with the
replies you have posted. After some time on discussion groups, I found I
was spending so much time there that I was not doing other things, like
making photographs, so I have more or less stopped, but your post is
irresistable.
There's lots to say about your thesis. I don't think you can just look at
the SLR sales decline and say this proves there's a disaster in the making.
Until the advent of computerized, zoom-lensed point and shoots, people who
wanted any variety at all in their equipment HAD to buy SLR's, which were
promoted as being universal cameras anyone could use (remember the TV ads
for the Canon AE-1?). Now lots of those people buy P&S. But they never
were going to become serious photographers anyway--all they wanted was
something for travel and family photos, and the P&S with 400-speed film
does that.
Of course lots of cameras are advertised as though you don't need to know
anything about photography to use them, and that's closer to being true now
than before--you can put a decent Canon SLR into green zone mode, and it
will produce those party pictures, providing flash when needed. But that
is how cameras have always been advertised to the general public--there is
really no change there (see the famous Kodak ads for the first P&S--an
early 20th century item where you bought the camera loaded with 25
exposures and then sent it back for the film to be processed--and don't
forget Kodak's slogan "You push the button and we do the rest.")
As for processing and film--well. We have a choice of a million minilabs,
some bad and some good, and can also send stuff away or take it to a pro
lab if we are serious. But what did we do in the good old days?--send
stuff in through the drugstore to Kodak (pricey) or somewhere else (just as
variable as the minilabs). Meanwhile we have a vast choice of color
print film, not just a couple of alternatives. It's true that B&W
doesn't get
processed at the drugstore any more, but that's a tribute to the
improvements in color, which the mass market surely would prefer--B&W
is
now almost exclusively a fine art medium, but so what? How about the
decline of slides? This says nothing to me about "serious
photographers;"
as one who has sat through hours of horrible trays of other people's
slides, it seems to me that what's happened is that the home slide
show has
been replaced by the video camera and the minilab's prints that people
can
give away. Is this a loss? With the breakdown of Kodak's monopoly,
we
have a much greater choice of slide film than ever before--we are not
forced to use horrible blue Ektachrome 64, but can choose our pallet
and
speed, even in medium and large format. (Yes, I know, Kodachrome is
on the
way out, but that's clearly Kodak's fault; they seem to me to be
either
grossly incompetent or to have decided to kill it by stealth!)
Anyway, to go back to the original subject, the decline in SLR sales
proves
nothing to me, given the alternatives now available. It's also just
not true that lens selection has gone way down. Compare the current list of
EOS lenses with an FD list of 20 years ago, or the current list of Leica
SLR lenses with an old one. It is true that there are tons of ordinary
zooms, and seemingly less of the exotic, shorter focal length prime lenses
(e.g., Canon doesn't make a 35 1.4). But there are still lots of
interesting prime lenses (Canon just introduced a 24 1.4, e.g.) especially
at the long end (sports and nature photographers have vast, wonderful
choices). I, as a long time Leica user, know that the best prime lenses
top the best zooms--but the best zooms are pretty good, and lots more
convenient for travel. I think we are much better off now.
We are also better off in terms of camera cost. My first SLR, a 1969
Miranda Senseroex, cost $250, and the 135 2.8 was $100. Translate those
numbers into today's, allowing for inflation, and see what you could
buy--it would be a lot more than the middle-priced SLR the Miranda was
then. Of course today's cameras are plastic, and I like metal better, but
there's no evidence of any lack of durability. Indeed, like cars, they
have become far more reliable. Of course, they won't be around in 50 years
like old Leicas, but whatever is around in even 10 years will be doing
tricks we haven't thought of yet.
(BTW, I have used Leicas, SLRs and RFs, for years, and love them, but the
attitude that says that all manual cameras or manual focusing is better
than all automatic stuff is just silly. Every test tells you that
electronic exposures are more accurate--manual shutters just don't
compete--and with a good AF electronic design you can shoot quickly, or
switch to manual if you need more precision. There are still improvements
to be made--e.g. it is inexcusable that Canon doesn't have adequate DOF
scales on its macro lenses--but surely we are ahead of the old manual days
in many ways.)
I also see the proliferation of models as a benefit, not a cost. It's just
like computers--something new, and in some cases actually useful, becomes
possible, so the manufacturer does it (e.g., better and better
autofocus, eye control, image stabilization, light metering that can
take account of
the situation, APS, etc., etc.). How can an increase in choice, which we
have, be bad?--except of course to make us wish we were rich! (BTW,
reflect on the fact that we have so much more choice in a time of declining
sales! I think this is because it's so much easier to create new options
now.)
So, you might ask, why don't we have more serious photographers? Lots of
reasons! A lot of photographers are more technician than artist, and
there are tons of other exciting things for technically oriented people
(including the kids) to do, including computers! It is also true that
people have serious, time-consuming hobbies less often now than they used
to--the head of household, 9-5 middle class factory worker with the
stay-at-home wife is a dodo. Both partners usually work, and it's all they
can do to keep up with the rest of their lives in what used to be leisure
time. Standing around for an hour to get a good nature shot isn't on for
lots of these people.
Well--enough. This is way too long. But thank you for setting me off.
Best wishes.
Charlie
[Ed. note: I sent a long reply, several times to Charles, but it kept
bouncing ;-( ]
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998
The inkjet paper industry is advancing forward and changing products at a
fast rate. What ever I could tell you about what I know will be obsolete
next week.
El Cheapo photo quality printers are all the rage, far and away the biggest
seller leaving dot matrix and lazer printers in their dust. It is only a
matter of time until the general public will discover that their everyday
printer is capable of amazing photo quality output. Once it catches on,
IMHO, silver based photography will be in real trouble.
I photographed a major inkjet printer manufacturer's international sales
meeting last month. I was amazed to learn that 20% of all images are now
made with digital cameras!!! A year it was less than 1 percent! They all but
admited that they are giving the printers away at cost and making all of
their profit from the sale of ink and paper.
They said that the cost of printers will drop at a slower rate because they
are making them about as cheap as they can now. In the future, look for
inkjet printers to double the resolution and speed.
Robert Erickson, [email protected]
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Today I happened to be in my local Wal-Mart and figured I'd check out the
cameras on display at the photo dept. As you probably know they have quite
a selection of point-and-shoots available to play around with, without
being bothered by any pesky salespeople.
I had never even looked at any of the modern PS style 35's, so this
experience was quite a revelation: THEY WERE HORRIBLE! Tiny pinhole
viewfinders, big fat cameras, shockingly cheesy cheap feeling, horrible
ergonomics with impossible to work little pin buttons, and utterly
confusing and incomprehensible deeply encoded controls- makes you think
that operating them is classified "top secret". Worst of all was a rather
expensive Fuji, big and fat, larded up with millions of buttons; but worst
of the worst, the pinhole viewfinder (like looking through backwards
binoculars) was such that the effective location of the image was about one
inch from your eyeball. Looking through it normally resulted in a blurred
image; focusing on it took enormous effort and left my poor eye sore for
about an hour afterwards.
No wonder photography has declined in popularity! These were rather
expensive- around $200-300 for most of them- good grief, think of the great
35mm compacts you used to be able to get for about $100 or less (Trip 35,
QL17, Hi-Matic...) that were a pleasure to use; these were simply
miserable. The only ones that were even barely usable were a Samsung and a
Konica.
How could anyone enjoy photography using this wretched junk? Who are the
sadists responsible? YUUUUUCKKKKK!!!!!!!!!
--
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999
The comments of this group have ben interesting and helpful. When I
started with this group I considered my self an advanced amateur - now I
consider myself a "retarded amateur"! I would like to offer a few
observations . A while back I had a table at a camera show in Milwaukee.
The fellow at the next table who is regularly engaged in selling
photography stuff said that interest in old cameras are diminishing and
generally confined to the older group of people (of which I am one). A
couple of years ago I was suspicious of auto focusing and auto exposure.
Later, I questioned APS and digital cameras but I see the new technology
and wants of the customer changing the market.
I do agree that eventually there will be segments of amateur photography
... the image recorders and the artists. The former will use the new
automated devices and take many above average or above photos. The artists
will opt for the sharpness required for large prints and other qualities
gained by manual type of equipment. There will also be those who, like the
Model A Ford Club, will do the same in photography with their Rolleis and
Koni Omegas.
I am retired but run a part-time claim adjusting business that requires
photos. I own 2 Rolleis and a KO Rapid and like using them but I never
would haul them around to take pictures of damaged buildings wrecked
vehicles, etc. Plus I would have to spend time making the settings and
prone to error. My Nikon N-70 is very dependable and versatile especially
in my business. I just acquired a Canon Elph, Jr. which is easy to carry,
always available and will do the job in certain cases. I do not think APS
will make it. I now have a Kodak 210+, not an expensive digital, but one
seems to serve certain purposes and is convenient. I can e-mail pictures
to a few clients. (most still take the reports by mail) So far while I
find the camera rather useful but .... considerable time and learning is
necessary to use the various software programs programs. The quality is
adequate for the purpose. While I don't need film it goes through AA
batteries almost like film! It's easier to store and retrieve pictures.
Probably in 2 years the software I have will be obsolete and I will have
to learn a new system. While the digital has pros and cons, I have yet to
determine if this was a good move.
The mechanical cameras with out batteries are aging as those interested in
using them ( I don't imply all old camera users are old!) Repair people
for these cameras are aging and disappearing as well. Most of the
venerable companies that made these cameras are gone or under different
ownership. The "market share" is dropping every year. We, old camera
users, are becoming more of an exclusive group. I am in amateur radio and
the same is taking place.
In spite of these changes, there is a charm about using older cameras that
don't need batteries, printed circuits, but require your participation in
use.
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999
Just wanted to let you know I am doing my best to debunk the "serious amateur
photographer = 55+" image. I am 24, and although I am currently in law
school, I rely on photography in my spare time as a creative release that the
study of law doesn't really afford. I also have several friends my age who,
while they may not have as serious a case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome as I,
are fairly dedicated photographers in their own right.
I would agree, however, that the young market needs a good kick in the
butt to graduate from P&S technology to serious photo work. Until 6
months ago, all I ever owned were P&S cameras -- first an old 110; when
that broke, a 35mm; when that broke, a basic APS model. I enjoyed taking
pictures, but never gave it much thought other than preserving snapshots.
It took a mission trip to Mexico to get me into photography -- I watched
the trip photographer snapping away with an old AE-1 while I stood there
with my dinky APS camera, and the photos I got back were very
disappointing. Two weeks later, I bought my X370, 50mm lens, flash, and
(albeit dinky) tripod; six months later, I am much happier for the
results.
As far as the economic indicators to photography's downfall: I agree that
photography has been bastardized since the 70's with alternatives such as
P&S (35mm and APS), digital, and video. However, I think that the decline
of serious amateur photography can only truly be measured by factoring in
the used market. It does boil down to economics, but not how you'd think.
When I first started pricing cameras, I saw many options in the new
market, but eventually focused on the used Minolta manual focus market.
The only things I ever bought new for my camera (besides bags, filters,
and sundries) were a tripod and a flash. Everything else (3 cameras, 2
motor drives, 8 lenses) I bought used. If I had comparable equipment in a
new Nikon or Canon system, I figure it would have cost around
$8,000-10,000. However, I've spent less than $3,000 due to the great used
market, and I would never consider buying anything new I didn't have to.
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999
Robert --
Found your site through the link in your "Third Party Lenses" messages on
the Nikon-digest list. You've got some really great, fascinating stuff! I
believe your analyses are right on.
I lived in Dallas in the early '70s when the Nikon F2 was introduced. I
remember that it was in short supply at pro camera stores, but rich
dilettantes got all they wanted paying full list price from Neiman-Marcus.
I've lived in the Washington, D.C. area since 1976, and noticed the same
peaking of camera sales in the late '70s. Using newspaper classified ads as
an investigative tool, I found photography interest to have peaked in the
early '80s. At that time the Sunday _Washington Post_ regularly had 4 or 5
entire columns of ads for photo equipment, and that remained constant until
1984. And there was a separate classification for photo equipment. In 1984
year there was an almost complete drop-off of photo classifieds. Instead,
classifieds for computer equipment boomed, inspiring my conclusion that
photography equipment demand was (artificially) stimulated by hobbyists who
had little long-term commitment. Since the "new toy" in 1984 was the
personal computer, people who had gorged themselves on photo equipment
turned instead to computer hardware and software. (Although personal
computers had been around in some form for about 8 years in 1984, the
critical mass of hardware and software usable by people in general only hit
with the introduction of the IBM PC XT, the Apple Macintosh, and by Lotus
1-2-3.)
I especially liked your analysis of the pro camera cost/benefits. Your
listing of income levels for pro photographers also explains well why the
photographic industry is in trouble.
--
[Ed. note: this is a followup on the above and related postings...]
Robert -- below is a post I've sent to the Nikon-List and I value your
opinions if you don't see it on the list. Thanks!
--
---------------------------------------------------
I've done a lot of thinking about this, and while much of this post is pure
speculation and opinion on my part, I do believe my core premise is correct.
Unfortunately, as crass as it may be, the whole name of the game these days
for commodity products (and cameras are commodity products just like
computers) is _Marketing-to-the-Masses_. There's a good argument to be made
that Nikon could best benefit their shareholders by abandoning the high-end
market completely, where there is little profit, and instead build only
consumer-grade cameras, lenses, point-'n-shoot and digital cameras, etc.
The primary (biggest market share) purchasers of high-end cameras and
lenses (Nikon, Leica, Contax, etc.) are mostly well-heeled dabblers -- not
working pros or advanced amateurs who appreciate quality. For many of these
people price is no object, but they also make relatively few -- by
individual person -- total quantity of purchases.
Conversely, the primary (biggest market share) purchasers of all cameras
and lenses are casual photographers, snap-shooters, point-'n-shooters, etc.
These people make up 80% of the total market.
_All_ successful businesses operate on the 80/20 rule of marketing -- which
has several different statistical meanings. (1) 80% of the profits comes
from sales of the least expensive 20% of the products; (2) 80% of the users
use only 20% of the product features; (3) 80% of the complaints come from
20% of the users; (4) 20% of the products produce 80% of the sales... and
so on (this is also called the Pareto Principle (or Law), and one source of
further information is the book "The 80/20 Principle: The Secret of
Achieving More With Less," by Richard Koch, Doubleday, 1998.)
While it may appear that Nikon's high-end cameras account for only 20% of
their product line, we have to include _all_ the accessories, high-end
lenses, flashes, etc., as part of the high-end products, and if we do, we
indeed see the consumer-grade products truly make up only about 20% of all
products. (A purchaser of a F/N60 or F/N70 is unlikely to want any of the
auxiliary cords and cables, or many filters, or "big-glass" lenses, for
example.)
Another problem is that the market for film-based photography in general,
is -- if not actually shrinking -- clearly not a growth market. It's not
even clear that digital photography as practiced today will be as huge a
market as some expect, although photo-grade computer printers are selling
like hotcakes.
Here's an example to illustrate a declining market -- estimates of total
sales of the original Nikon F in all its forms are around one million units
sold over about 12 years. In 1963 I paid about $230USD for my first Nikon
F. One estimate for total sales of the Nikon F4 over the (approximately)
eight-year product run claims fewer than half-a-million units sold (at an
average price of probably in excess of $1400USD). By comparison, Dell
Computer probably sells 500,000 computers priced at $1,500USD _every month_!
Let's say the wholesale cost of a Nikon F was $200USD in the 1960s. Nikon's
gross was at least $200 million USD over the production run. Let's say the
wholesale cost of a Nikon F4 was about $1,200USD (Henry Posner, please jump
in if I'm far off). The F4 grossed less than $600 million USD over time,
but when you factor inflation, the relative gross of each was about the
same in constant dollars.
Since disposable income inreased dramatically over the 30 years between
these models, more people should have been able to afford a Nikon F4 than
the original F. Even the strong competition from Canon over the past
decade-and-a-half cannot account for all the missing Nikon sales.
Some claim that Nikon is too conservative, too slow to move into new
technologies. While I think that from a marketing standpoint Nikon is too
conservative, they were radically innovative and cutting edge in both the
original F and in the F3 -- the F did more than any other 35mm camera
(including Leica) to inspire photojournalists and fashion photographers for
a decade and more. The F3 was breathtakingly daring in 1980, by inroducing
a completely battery dependent, electronically-based, pro-oriented camera
at a time when most people didn't trust computers and electronics that
much. As I note below, Nikon later lost that edge, but the F5 and F100 may
be an indication they are slowing getting it back -- now if only their
advertising would get outstanding again!
Because of the huge technical advances in both films and electronic flashes
over the past 20 years, for all practical purposes available light
photography is as dead as color transparency film. Oh, sure, there are
still many practitioners who use both, but from a market perspective the
money available for such products is hardly worth worrying about. So
truly-fast lenses are not all that needed (or desired, or afforded) by the
biggest market share of potential buyers.
Since zoom lenses (with slow-to-moderate maximum apertures) work perfectly
fine with modern auto-everything cameras with modern films and flashes,
major camera manufacturers (especially the relatively small ones like
Nikon), have limited resources for new product development aimed mostly at
the high-end. So the development is concentrated on the 80% of the market
share, and this results in more zoom lenses of moderate price and speed. In
addition, all of the Nikkor lenses you list below either are or were
available as manual focus lenses, meaning there is something available in
each range for those who really need the focal length/lens speed
combination.. Some, such as the 200 f/2 never achieved great popularity, so
there is little evidence that an updated AFS version could ever pay for
itself.
An aside -- apart from wildlife photography, I'm not sure we can say that
autofocus with long lenses has resulted in all that many improved photos
over what are/were produced with manual focus long, fast glass. For
example, if I'm shooting soccer, (American) football, basketball, or
baseball, I can still consistently (manually) out-focus any of the
autofocus rigs I've tried -- just because experience with a sport outweighs
the (marginal, IMHO) utility of AF. Example -- in football, you decide a
certain play is going to come from the right side of the field, so you set
the F5/F100 focus sensor to the right selector. OOOPS! That play shuts
down, and the running back is scrambling back to the left. You don't have
time to shift the focus selector, but out of the corner of your eye you
focus manually -- without even thinking about it! (Don't get me started
about Canon's Eye-Controlled Focus!
As for the other lenses, here are some of my thoughts:
200 f/2 AFS: As noted above the original 200 f/2 never achieved great
popularity, and probably still wouldn't make enough sales to cover costs.
When Nikon did make a _300 f/2,_ it was a special-order item with a list
price -- at the time -- of over $21,000USD ("Nikon System Handbook," 5th
edition) -- just to show how expensive big glass gets when it gets
ultra-fast.
300 f/4 AFS: The 300 f/4 really needs a "D" upgrading first. Nikon's
marketing department probably feels (with good reason) that most of the
people wanting AFS will prefer the 300 f/2.8 AFS at (even as much as)
triple the price. A 300 f/4 AFS probably would cost at least $1800USD,
based upon the margin between existing lenses and their AFS versions.
400 f/5.6 AFS: Same argument as above. In addition, throwing a 1.4x
converter on the 300 f/4 gies you a 400 f/5.6 People who really need AFS
probably prefer an f/2.8.
400 f/3.5 AFS: Why? It's a half-stop slower than the f/2.8, and probably
would cost just about the same.
500 f/2.8 and 800 f/4: Probably would cost as much each as a luxury car,
and though lots of us would _like_ one, *very* few of us could afford one!
They also would be a special-order item, as there's no way any supplier
could afford to keep them in inventory.
14 f/2.8 D -- Agreed. This would be a nice lens to have available. However
(gasp), people who have used the Sigma 14 f/2.8 are favorably impressed. Is
there enough of a market for Nikon to compete with an already-established
product? How many people who really need a 14mm already have a Sigma (for
example) and would immediately replace it with a Nikkor?
A lens _I_ would really like is a Tilt/Shift lens (such as Canon has). But
the price of the lens now would probably be more than a Canon EOS3/Canon
T/S combined. Since (probably) everybody who wants and needs such a lens
already has gone that route, there most likely isn't enough of a market
left for Nikon to enter.
I'm not trying to defend Nikon here. In general I agree with your points
(and of others who list other seeming deficiencies in the Nikon line). But
market reality does set the agenda -- time after time we've seen businesses
fail when run by engineers, while competitors with lesser products succeed
in the same market with superior marketing.
I do believe that Nikon made a bet-the-company decision a dozen years ago
or so that autofocus would never achieve mainstream (pro and serious
amateur) status, and it backfired, so now they are playing catch-up. One of
the prime rules of marketing is to be first in the market -- not best, but
first. Nikon certainly was both all through the 1960s and 1970s when Nikon
was synonymous with quality cameras. They lost that edge, and it is a slow
battle to win it back. Things don't turn around overnight, and your example
of the F/N60 and F100 as showing some hope for Nikon's future is correct.
But I think it is unfair to say "they are falling asleep again." New
products take time to develop, and as pointed out above, they first have to
fill the biggest potential part of the market.
At 01:41 PM 5/7/1999 +0200, Walter Freiberger wrote:
--
From: [email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
This is an interesting speculation. One of the things that I've
noticed about B&H is that they keep a remarkable amount of Nikon
goodies in stock (more than Camera World anyway). I have to believe
that their volume must be huge so I wouldn't be suprised to find they
have a particularly good deal with many original equipment vendors
which might lead to them having a lower dealer costs for equipment.
Vendors may also give deals if you buy over a certain amount of a given
item all at once. Notice that B&H still has new F4s's available even
though that camera was discontinued a while back. Maybe they bought
a ton of them to get a better price and the remaining stock was an
accident.
This would certainly be interesting information but as one might
expect, neither Nikon nor most dealers are eager for us to know this.
Car dealers hate the fact that buyers can now get this kind of
information.
BTW, according to Nikon's Full Line Product Guide Volume 5, the list
price on this lens is a whopping $1380.00. The AF-S version is
$1585.00. Interestingly, the B&H price on the AF-S is $1599.95 which is
$14.95 (or 0.9%) *over* list. The regular version at $849.95 is
$530.05 (or 38.4%) below list.
Camera World does a little better with the AF-S at $1499.99 which is
$85.01 (or 5.4%) below list but not as well with the regular at $899.99
which is $480.01 (or 34.8%) below list.
I don't know if we can assume that there's a formula for list price to
dealer cost but it is interesting that B&H actually sells the AF-S
version for more than the manufacturers list price. I'm now sitting
here wondering if the price of the AF-S will go down after a while. If
the markup percentage of the regular version is any indication then
dealers could presumably sell the AF-S for similar profit margins at
somewhere between $976 and $1030. Obviously, the AF-S version is very
hot right now so nobody's too keen to discount it big when they can get
so much money for it. The only way to get the price down is for
everyone to stop buying it. Yeah, that'll happen ;-).
--KAS
From: Todd & Sharon Peach [email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
FWIW, 15 years ago I sold camera equipment retail. All the sales folk
had access to the "dealer cost" sheets for Nikon, among others. If I
remember correctly, the wholesale or "dealer net" cost varied somewhat
with quantity. There was a "1-5" price, a slightly cheaper "6-10"
price, etc. At that time, the big mail order houses advertised retail
prices that pretty well lined up with the "1-5" wholesale price. There
were other special programs like ad budgets and special incentives that
were not reflected in the wholesale catalog price.
When you take a place like B&H, which is rumored to sell more Nikon than
any other single store in the world, you would think they would get a
discount somewhat cheaper than the "6-10" price.
Then of course there is gray market, which is a whole different game.
Nikon USA offered sales guys a very tightly controlled "employee
discount", whereby we could purchase lenses for 15% below dealer net.
It was still way cheaper (at the time) for me to buy gray out of B&H.
In our metro market (Phoenix) at the time, "name" cameras like a Nikon
F3 were about 3-4% markup. We really could care less if you bought the
camera from us. We made more dollars profit on a bag and a UV filter
then we did on the camera. Lenses were a bit more markup, but still not
enough to run a business on.
-Todd
--
Todd & Sharon Peach
From: [email protected] (HiWayMan17)
The CEO of Kodak announced somewhat of a change in thinking for the future
of Kodak. While the company has been stressing digital photography as the
hope for their future in recent years, at the annual investors meeting,
Kodak's position for the future was redefined. Kodak now officially
states that the future of photography is FILM BASED, with digital
technology as an enhancement to film. Kodak was silent as to the future
of APS.
From: [email protected] (H.Gunnarsson)
Martin Krieger says...
In 1996 the new Swiss (not Swedish) owners of Hasselblad (Union Bank of
Switzerland + British funds have a 90% share) made it clear that they
wanted Hasselblad to cancel the costly development of digital products.
As a consequence the president of Hasselblad resigned. Making classical
cameras was more profitable, and making profit was the very reason for
buying the company in the first place. The new owners also admitted that
Hasselblad was seen as a short term investment.
As far as I know Hasselblad has not changed owners. The economical crisis
in the Far east had a great negative effect on the sales figures, despite
a significant increase in the US.
Another thought: Take a look at a Hasselblad A12 back. It's not exactly
rocket science although the price tag suggests the opposite. That's a
pretty good deal for the Swiss owners!
--
rec.photo.technique.nature
....
Take a look at the test of the Olympus OM-4Ti here:
http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/jul-dubler99.htm
Particularly the last paragraph where the Olympus America boss tells
why they bother making it. Olympus is mainly selling point & shoot but
they still consider the volume-wise totally unimportant OM-system as
important for their image.
Let me just cite one sentence: "They feel it's neccessary for Olympus to
have a flagship 35mm SLR camera in order to be respected in the
photographic market.....etc"
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999
from: [email protected] (Sam Sherman) 9-1-99
To: Bronica List
I remember when cameras cost $10 to $200 and camera store salesmen were only
too happy to demonstrate all kinds of cameras to me when I was a 10 year old
boy. I boughts lots of equipment and supplies at that local store.
Today cameras cost $100 to $4500 and the buyer is expected to look at an ad
in a magazine and just call and put a $2000 purchase on a credit card and
that is it.
We have lost something along the way. Camera stores salesmen were once very
informed about all of the equipment they sold and demonstrating that
equipment to potential customers was part of the job.
In years past big photo trade shows where cameras were demonstrated were few
and far between, as they still are today, and unless a manufacturer had a
rare demonstration at a store how is somebody to know if they would like to
use and be comfortable with a piece of expensive equipment?
I have bought many cameras along the way by going into stores and having a
salesman tell me about new products and their advantages etc. Many stores
today just have salemen who are order takers
who rush the buyer through, grab his credit card and give him a sealed box.
We have lost something of humanity along the way.
- Sam Sherman
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 99
Bob,
Maybe it's not photographers killing photography, but the manufacturers?
Looking at the B&H ad (extremely competitive prices!) in the recent
Shutterbug just astonishes me. Hasselblad 203-FE body at $5626 and
205-FCC at $7340. No wonder we pay so much for peanut butter at the
grocery store; it costs a lot to take the pix on the label. The new XPAN
body at $1616, even with the titantium, I can't imagine this camera being
worth more than $500. Won't even comment on the prices of the lenses.
Look at the undoubtedly excellent Mamiya 7. $1979 just for the body. I
can't believe that it can't be brought in at $1,000. Rolleiflex with no
real new technology can't manufacture a reasonably priced, by which we
mean $1,000, TLR.
Well, let's go manual SLR. Olympus OM-3Ti body for
$1500 and the OM-4Ti body for $1099. Again, the development costs should
have been long amortized. Let's go Contax. RTSIII body at $2250: that's
silly. (Of course, the absurd prices on the top Nikon and Canon AF SLR
models make the value-line medium format cameras look like tremendous
bargains: i.e. Rollei 601 Pro at $2699. But that's still a lot of bucks
to throw around.)
I don't even think a lot of the P&Ss are that great a value considering
the build quality and maximum apertures. Just found a Konica IIA at $125
that is a far superior, real-world camera.
Wait, I did find one bargain: 85mm Canon EOS EF lens at $369!
Sincerely,
David Stein
From Leica Digest:
Hi Eric,
Happy that you went to photography in France.
As I said, it's the legal minimum salary. In France, there is between 15
and 20% of unemployed persons. That contributes to lower the salaries. If
you were 20 years old and were a beginner in photography, you would not
earn more. You are right when you suggest that life is near impossible in
Paris with that income. Alas, many people, in particular young people have
to do with that.
I did understand that, but I thought that US Luggers would not mind to
learn how things are going here :-). Hope I was not that boring.
Maybe you are right. But keep in mind that here local photo shops are
slowly dying. There are large chains (groups) like FNAC, Photo Service or
Carrefour (hypermarkets) that take the most of the market. Moreover, the
market of quality photography itself is dying. Prices are very high; a new
M6 costs $3000 (body only) and a roll of Velvia $10. From what I read, a
lot of North American amateurs buy high end cameras, accessories, films.
Here a typical amateur (I did say amateur) will buy a Canon EOS-50 (I
don't remember the US name) with a 28-105 zoom and Kodacolor Gold films at
FNAC or Carrefour. He will have films developed at Carrefour (1 FFR,
$0.15, the 10x15 cm print) and buy 1 or 2 enlargements a year. In large
cities, he will not even know that there is a local photo shop at the
street corner. I live in Lyon. Twenty years ago, the biggest independent
photo shop was employing 150 persons. Now, they are five....
All the best,
- --
From Rollei Mailing List:
Didn't make sense when I heard it, but it was one of the guys from the
Kiev factory at photokina who told me. Maybe they were so cheap in the old
days that the Arsenal boys could buy them cheaper than they could make
them. John Noble told me that prior to the reunification the old Praktica
factory was spending around $ 350 to make something they sold for less
than $ 150, so market economics just didn't apply.
I've got one of those satellite prisms. Looks really pretty sitting on a
table in my living room. Not much good as a vase, though, since they only
bored about a seven or eight millimeter round hole! Works OK as a classy
pen holder, though!
From Leica Mailing List:
The Leica Camera AG second quarter Interrum report can be downloaded (in
English) from Leica's web site under investor relations:
http://www.leica-camera.com/untern/ir/ir_e.htm The relevant document
is:
http://www.leica-camera.com/untern/ir/pdf/zwbq2_e.pdf
This was released
yesterday and has all of the most recent financials. It doesn't copy well
to a mail document so download the original and check it out.
This and their latest annual report make very interesting reading. It seems
that M-system sales are doing great, up 17.6% from same period last year.
While R-system sales are -21.3%. To quote from the text "In the
high-quality SLR market, which is in constant decline, ..." I don't know
whether they mean that the market for high-quality SLRs is declining or the
market for Leica SLRs.
They talk about new products but now specifics. Stay tuned...!
Mike D.
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000
A very interesting article, but one that I think is being made somewhat
irrelevant by digital imaging methods.
As a somewhat serious photo nut, I have to say that we are in the midst of
a renaissance of photography as a serious hobby made possible by the
digital revolution.
I think that digital imaging techniques will broadly expand the base of
serious photographers and actually improve the broad state of the
photographic art by making it more accessible to the short attention span
masses that need the instant feedback and gratification that digital
photography provides.
I think also that the current leaders in film photography (e.g. Nikon,
Canon, Olympus, Fuji, Kodak) have recognized this and have become leaders
in the digital photography arena.
Technology has moved astonishingly fast in the last two years, and while I
suspect that while digital technology will never reach the resolution
levels of film photography, digital techniques will replace film based
photography for all but specialized applications.
And while the sale of SLRs (especially consumer level cameras) will
continue to decline, digital imaging equipment sales will far surpass that
of SLR sales in its heyday.
[Ed. reply: While many folks will use digital cameras for web work and low
resolution needs, I don't consider such folks "serious amateur
photographers". Most digital camera owners will not study up on
photography, composition, or how to improve their photography. They just
want a fast and cheap (no processing cost) way to post images on their web
pages or EBAY! ;-) Digital cameras may well become the polaroids of the
millenium, cost effective as they skip processing fees. But I doubt they
will displace film at the high quality end for some time, at least at
reasonable prices. Most current pro shops are using film, but then
scanning rather than spend $55,000 for a Dicomed hasselblad back, or even
$20,000 for the Kodak medium format backs. Not everyone has a computer and
color corrected monitor and skills with photoshop to do digital
manipulation either.]
[Ed. note: followup..]
I think that if the state of digital imaging technology were to be frozen
at the state that it is now, Feb 2000 you will be correct. I suspect,
though that this will not be the case. I suspect that low cost (~$1000)
10 megapixel units will be commonplace within two years.
My point about digital imaging and the improvement of photographic skills
and interest is that the ability to shoot a high volume of images at low
cost and with instant feedback will attract many new people to
photography. Many who were put off by the high cost of film stock,
developing, and the temporal disconnect between the moment of film
exposure and evaluation of the image will find digital photography as a
satisfying and affordable means of artistic expression.
I agree with you that few will buy books on photography, but many of the
issues treated in such volumes deal with the vagaries of classic
film-based imaging.
I suspect that newer digital imaging methods will allow the capturing of
light data with unprecedented exposure latitude, pixel depth and detail.
Much of the brain work needed to properly expose and develop film will
instead be put into issues of composition and image post processing made
possible by applications such as PhotoShop. Rather than photographers
carefully studying zone system methods, I think that more effort will be
placed on examining the composition and narrative aspects of image making.
There are two other areas where digital imaging has already resulted in
revolutions. Digital Video technology encompassing the use of the DV
format coupled with IEEE-1394 equipped desktop computers using inexpensive
editing software has now allowed everyday people to make video movies
approaching professional quality for an investment of about $4000. Sure
many bad wedding and birthday party videos will be made, but I suspect
that many very interesting independent films will be made by surprisingly
young people using this low cost technology.
I look to the explosive growth of amateur astronomy in recent years
largely made possible by the introduction of new technologies such as
Dobsonian telescopes and CCD digital imaging as perhaps one of the most
important successes. In fact, amateur astronomers can now effectively
compete with their professional colleagues in the search for new comets
and other heavenly objects (witness the discovery of comet Hale-Bopp).
I think that these examples are a harbinger for what will come to amateur
photography in general as enabled by digital imaging. It is going to be a
very interesting future.
A point about the large number of P&S shooters and serious photography: I
can't think of anything that puts me off to photography more than seeing
the results of a typical cheap P&S camera with one hour developing. Even
a cheap 1 megapixel digital camera can produce better results than that.
-J
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000
I read the thread "The Death spiral of serious amateur photography" with
amazement and mounting sense of alarm. The tone of the article and
responses, in my opinion, are elitist and bordering on racist. It is
opinions like that expressed that are certain to cause the demise of
photography.
The premise of the thread is extraordinarily short-sighted and. It is
based on the luddite assumption that the precipitous decline of 35 mm SLR
and the extraordinariy rapid increase in sales of P & S cameras bodes ill
for the future of "serious" amateur photography. (Assuming of course, that
a Contax G-2 owner is not "serious" in that it is not an SLR). If these
assumptions weren't written in such an oh-so-serious alarmist tone, they
could easily be mistaken for a hilarious parody of an old stick-in-the-mud
photographer. If those bigoted dinasaurs are going extinct, then all I
have to say is "VIVA THE TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION!!!!"
For an additional credible refutation of the basic assumptions of your
attitude, read some of Phillip Greenspan's celebration of the P & S
revolution.
The P & S revolution is based on one simple and compelling reality: For
the overwhelming majority of PHOTOGRAPHERS who are really interested in
the end PRODUCT of a camera, in contrast to the ELITE gearheads and
collectors of imaging relics; even a cheap P & S camera is a FAR superior
piece of technology than a Leica M series. Functionally, a $150 Yashica
T-4 Super blows the shorts off of a Rollei or a Hasselblad FOR THE VAST
MAJORITY OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN PRODUCING GOOD PRINTS.
So if Rollei and Hasselblad and even Leica are on their last legs, GOOD
RIDDANCE!!! Rolleis, Hasselblads and Leicas are obsolete industrial-age
museum pieces, unfunctional and dusty relics for collectors. Let the
Contax G-2 "non-serious" photographers storm the barricades and rid
ourselves of the bloodsucking nobility with the force of pitchforks!!!
There is a hint of racism involved in your assumptions: It is better for
the future of serious amateur photography to have sturdy, overall-clad
Aryan workman types whittling away all day long handbuilding clunky
machinery than it is for a snot-nosed video-game-educated oriental punk to
design an electronic whiz bang wonderbrick on a CAD-equipped super
computer.
BULLSHIT!
Bear with me while I explain.
At one point in life, I must have been one of them there so-called
"serious amateurs." I had a Pentax ME with abysmal cheap zoom lenses that
produced extraordinarily-awful pictures. I had neither the time or
patience to learn to use it correctly. In addition, I was a part-time
sportwriter/photographer. At the newspaper, we used a Nikon with a
powerful motordrive, a film back holding huge spools of film with about
200 exposures, with a very fast very LONG (600 mm i believe) lens. This
was coupled with a powerful flash with a heavy auxiliary battery back. The
idea of sports photography was to position yourself bravely in the
appropriate football endzone, and blaze away gobbling film at a frantic
rate in hopes getting just one frame that was publisheable. Photography to
me became a arduous and unrewarding chore. Increased effort seemed to
bring only minimal improvement at best.
After I left the newspaper, I was so traumatized and alienated by "serious
amateur" photography that I refused to even pick up a camera for the next
16 years. Freinds would show me their latest wonderbricks, and in disgust
and mounting nausea, I would quickly change the subject to the weather. I
HATED PHOTOGRAPHY AND CAMERAS WITH A PASSION!!!! The day I pawned off that
horrible ME for $50 was an exilerating joyful day of personal liberty!
Last summer, I returned to the outdoors with a vengeance, backpacking more
than 200 miles in the beautiful Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho. The Idaho
mountains are so beautiful, you can basically THROW any old camera towards
them and get fantastic vistas of beauty. Still cringing from my shitty
prior photography experiences, I would hold my nose and buy (EEEKKK!!!)
those cheap LIGHT disposeable waterproof cameras. THE RESULTS WERE
INCREDIBLE - THE BEST COLOR PHOTOS I EVER TOOK!!! So entranced was I by
this astonishing revelation that I started thinking about buying a cheap P
& S - not because I thought the RESULTS would be any better (I
instinctively equated greater complexity with poorer RESULTS) but because
the P & S cameras were CHEAPER to operate in the long run. (Disposeables
are $5-$12 apiece. At Costco, a roll of 35 mm film is $1.) I went into a
discount department store with the intent of paying no more than $20 or
$30, but entranced by the bells and whistles of a zoomy steeply-discounted
Samsung, I walked out $120 poorer.
It became blantly and swiftly obvious why P & S cameras are so insanely
popular - they are far superior to most older SLRs BY MANY DEGREES OF
MAGNITUDE. Not only were the prints absolutely stunning and fabulous, but
the ease of getting them that way was mindblowing!!! I felt like Rip Van
Winkle, waking up again to photography after many years hibernating away
in a tortured and fitful sleep. I burned up 100's of rolls of film through
that wonderful little Samsung without a hitch or poorly-exposed or focused
photo in the lot. It was an astonishing freaking miracle. I bought a cheap
tripod, and the results became even more unbelievable. The clarity,
sharpness and vibrant colors knocked my socks off.
I was hooked, bad.
So I went into a speciality camera store with a great deal of fear and
trepidation, still smarting and cringing somewhat from the nightmarish old
days. I still had a massive resevoir of low self esteem around SLR
cameras.
I was shown a Canon Elan lle, and wonder of wonders, the sympathetic
salesman patiently heard out my grim tale of alienation, and
enthusiastically showed all the improvements over my little saintly
Samsung. I became weak in the knees and bought the Canon on the spot. The
results were even MORE gratifying with virtually no more complexity. I
sold the Samsung on ebay for $90 and to this day I get occassional raving
and grateful emails from the guy who bought it.
Where am I now? I guess back to being a "serious amateur," having
collected an EOS 3 with several "L" series lenses, a Contax G-2 outfit and
a Nikon F-5 pared with an N90s backup with several beautiful lenses. A
Contax 645 AF should be here by the end of the week (And the two beautiful
old Yashica TLR's that got me hooked on MF sit shined on top of my
bookshelf.)
I've taken several advanced photography courses, and followed my
instructor's dictate of using only a K-1000. Now that I am secure with the
virtuosity of the wonderbricks, the old K is learnable, notwithstanding my
occassional outbreaks of ADD.
So did P & S's and disposeable cameras ruin this "serious amateur?" If
anything, those wonderful little technological miracles are gonna INCREASE
the sales of top- end SLRs and medium format cameras over the long run. My
experience is not unique. And if these wonderbricks are obsoleted in two
years WHO CARES? Would you still want a 15 year old computer? Would you
still want to do math on a abacus, and lament the demise of abacus makers?
The future of photography is here, and it is beyond my wildest dreams.
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999
I just read your article on the Death Of Serious Photography, and I have
to say it is sad but true.
I am a 20 year old photographer who has been behind a camera for 7
years.
In this seven years I have met only 1 other person my age who was a
photographer.
I am now a photo student at the Fashion Institute Of Technology in NYC,
and I have yet to meet someone my age in the photo dept. The closest one
is 24 years old.
Recently at the Photo Expo East, I was browsing at the Leica booth, and
wanted some technical information on the Noctilux lens. I was brushed off
by an extremely rude Leica Factory Rep, because he was to busy trying to
show a 55 year old man how to mount a lens.
Now, I know it was the Leica booth, but how are young photographers
supposed to get anywhere when the very industry that makes money off of
them; ignores them.
This was a common scenario at every single display except for the
"digital" companies such as Adobe. In fact Adobe asked my 20 year old
girlfriend to take pictures of the event with a digital camera, and gave
her a free T-shirt, and tons of product Literature.
The "digital revolution" is taking place as we speak because the
companies involved in the technology are embracing youth, and these are
the future consumers.
Whereas Nikon/Leica/Contax/Hasselblad/Mamyia, could not be bothered
with a 20 year old photographer.
All in all I agree 100% with your essay, and hope that I can be of
assistance to turn the tide of the D.S.O.S.P.
Thanks
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999
Hello Robert,
I would like to start by saying that you have a wonderful site, and I
visit it often. Also I might ad your piece on the death spiral of serious
photography is 100% on target! I could not find any thing that you have
missed.
I have been into photography since 1969 and have seen it go to hell in a
hand basket. This began to happen about 1984 and gets faster every year. I
am also a ham radio operator (KD6WJG) and I have noticed the same thing
there also. I think that the reasons are many, and are non stoppable. I
personally have decided not to abandon my life long love of photography
and in 1986 began a program of equipment procurement that still goes on
till now. As most photographers are giving up and dumping there good
serious manual focus and medium format cameras and lenses, I hoard them up
putting together one super meager system.
In Bronica I have both the EC and the ECTL, with glass from 40mm to
1200mm. I have backs, backs and more backs, including polaroid. I use it
for anything from landscapes to portraits and commercial work when I can
find someone with the money to pay for good photography, of course now
days most people can't tell good work from bad and only are willing for
junk! It seems that I am my best client.
Nowadays every one wants to go with this damn digital stuff. I like to
call it Polaroid of the 90's, you know instant gratification. Any way I am
preaching to the choir and not saving photographic souls by venting.
If you would like, I am willing to send photos of bronica lenses that you
don't have now if you would like, besides it seems that I have collected
it all, and it may be the only way some will ever be able to see what was
probably the most extensive medium format system I know of.
Regards Michael
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999
I just read a email from Mr Biggs saying they had to cancel the big
Charlotte Camera Show and trade fair because they didnt get enough
dealers registered. This is more bad news. Several other camera shows
have closed too. The whole hobby is ailing. The number of people in the
hobby of photography and the number of serious cameras sold today are
only about 25% of what they were twenty years ago, you know .
Long ago when I was a kid, amateur photography was the pastime of
fine upscale people. The local camera club ranked with the Yacht Club,
the Golf Club and the Rotary and Kiwanis in prestige. Fine men used to
make exquisite 11 x 14 prints in their own darkrooms and mount them on
16 x 20 boards and discuss, exhibit and judge them. We once had a nice
club like this in Spartanburg which I attended. Shelby and Charlotte had
fine clubs too. Dad belonged to a fine club for MIT employees long ago.
These clubs are all dead now... Amateur photo has slipped badly. The big
men are doing other things and amateur photography has declined to the
rank of games like playing pool or
maybe..horse shoes. We need to ask, "why?"
Here are some possibilities. ...Some trend is driving out out the good
people.. They could include:
1. Nasty aggressive photo dealers such as they have in NY that` drive
away the better, smarter people.
2. Photo magazines that are now dull, boring and stupid.
3. The recent plastic automatic chip driven cameras that` aren't any fun
to use compared to a beautifully made Leica , Pentax Spotmatic or
Rolleiflex TLR.
4. A Climate of fellowship is missing. For example...Much of this NG is
simply redneck raving of the category.pickup truck owners do...e.g. "
I'd rather walk... than drive a Chevy truck " (or Ford Truck or
whatever) Actually, Canon vs Nikon arguements are as silly as Ford vs
Chevy.
5. College photo classes no longer attract the better students.
Meanwhile, professional photography may be stronger than ever.
Wonderful pictures are still being made, better than commercial
photography long ago. . Look in a
...Ed Romney http://www.edromney
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999
The camera makers are no more or less guilty of this than any other
producer of consumer products. In fact they got on the planned obsolesce
train rather late in the game. Our entire world economy is based on
continued and ongoing consumption of everything. From toilet paper to
automobiles.
There was actually an organization of manufacturing companies in the US
that banded together in the forties and conceived the idea of limited life
span consumer products. The sole intention was to bolster the economy
with ongoing consumption of all consumer products. This has just become a
way of life world wide. Have you ever heard the expression, they just
don't build things like they use too.
Everything from the blender on your kitchen counter, the car parked in
your drive way, the house you live in or the latest tweedle deet camera
you just bought is designed from the ground up to have an intentional
limited life span. As far as the camera, it is two years to land fill.
That includes Mr. N's top of the line SLR. Nothing these days is designed
with the intention of ever repairing it, they would rather you didn't.
They just want to sell you a new one.
Having spent thirty years in the camera service industry, I came in on the
tail end of servicing cameras made in the thirty's, forty's and fifties.
Names like Contaflex, Voigtlander, Rolliflex, etc. Mostly long gone from
the scene now. You could drive a locomotive over most of these items and
they would still take pictures, of course they had none of the modern
amenities and technology driven automation of current cameras. They also
shared few of their faults. They were also very expensive by economic
standards of the day but lasted forever and were passed from generation to
generation.
Very little if anything is made like that today, least of all cameras.
So those who long for the perceived sun drenched glory days of yesteryear
frozen in the minds eye like some concept captured in a Norman Rockwell
painting, will be waiting a long time. They don't build them like they
use too, and they are not likely to ever do so again. Like that Mercedes
ad says, "perception is rarely reality", if ever.
Best regards,
geoff/camera tech
Date: 11 Jun 99
lemonade [email protected] wrote:
[...]
Though I do like the feel of fine mechanical cameras, I think Monaghan's
hypothesis is way off the mark.
You must consider how old photography is and the hobbies/entertainment
that have competed with it. When considering the competition, consider
the two factors:
- stimulation
- cost of production
Stimulation:
People now grow up in an environment that bombards them with every kind
of attention-grabbing stimulus - usually developed to promote products.
As a defence, people develop filters for various forms of stimuli. So
a good photograph might have been breathtaking 100 years ago. These days,
most people ignore eye-catching photographs because they are in abundance
on magazine covers and billboards.
Motion pictures provide much more stimulation. However there is...
Cost of production:
Editing a set of photographs can be easy. Just toss away the bad ones.
Producing good motion picture of any length is difficult. Editing is
expensive in terms of time. It can also be expensive in terms of money.
(Two high-quality videotape decks with flying erase heads, or a 500 MHz
PC with 20GB of hard drive space and a firewire interface to get into
the video realm.)
So most people cannot get the stimulation they want from still photos
due to the filters they've evolved. Most people cannot put together
satisfying motion pictures due to the time and expense.
So instead, the average person will go off and pay for packaged
entertainment, or take up one of the X-treme sports.
ACS
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999
[email protected] (lemonade) wrote:
Thanks for the URL. There are some interesting points brought up in
his article that I had not thought about. Some of the collolaries to
ham radio, etc., are scary. I also had to chuckle about the poor
quality of today's AF lenses. Yep. Looking back, probably the
biggest mistake I made was to sell my matched pair of Nikon F-2AS
bodies and move into the N body line....then on to the F-5. I own
none of this now. Pictures were fuzzy, distorted, unsaleable. Contax
with Zeiss lenses has been a real eye opener and kept at least one
foot in 35mm.
However, his point about the decline of 35mm is also augmented by
others saying that there is an increase in MF and LF. I certainly
hope so since that is what I have done and need MF to be around for a
long time. Hence, my earlier post about whether Rollei and Hassy will
be around in 5-7 years. Monaghan clearly explains the basis of my
prognostication. But as he pointed out, his figures show that SLR
sales should have gone to zero...but they did not. Time will tell.
How about the reduction in the number of photogs? Monaghan's point
was that a camera used to represent a significant financial
expenditure. Thus, it was seen by others as a status symbol. Now,
with P&S and cheap SLRs in abundance and costing less than a day's
wages, the camera per se is not a status symbol. In fact, it may only
be a status symbol to the owner. but if no one else knows what it is,
why have it? And if no one else really cares what you have or what it
is, again, why have it?
Another factor to consider is how people spend their leisure time.
Photographing the family used to be a big deal. Now, there are indeed
P&S cameras that will do this. And of course, there are digital
cameras and video recorders in abundance. how many new families have
photo scrap books vs. rolls of video tape? My wife's 30 rolls of 8mm
color movie film of her growing up years got transferred to S-VHS and
the film is gone. Today, people work differently and play
differently. Along these lines, that tends to take photography out of
the equation. I left ham radio some years ago since it became a total
waste of time. Thus, time itself has become a consumable. And time
has, I theorize, become a driving force in determining what people do,
how they spend their money and how they consume time.
Gary Gaugler, Ph.D.
http://photoweb.net
E-mail: gary@gaugler dot com
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999
Just to repeat this important URL.
That's a good part, but unfortunately the numbers just aren't there, and
also so much of it is from the used ranks.
More positive to me is the rise of e.g. the Yasuhara. That may be the
future: as the big guns eventually produce nothing but uninteresting
horrid crap, there will be room for smaller companies to fill niche
markets, which after all is maybe all that we are.
Absolutely, the competition for time is a big factor, since nowadays there
are two enormous timesuckers devouring all else: television and internet.
Even sex is having a hard time competing (of course according to a recent
survey in Britain, it was ranked similarly, or was it below, gardening).
This relates to Alvin Chia-Hua Shih's follow up post in the original
thread.
On the other hand, one factor that may, if word gets out, strike in
photography's favour, especially black and white phtography, is permanence
issues: those video tapes will not last long. The original Kodachrome
films would have been around forever, but the video transfers will likely
not last long enough for the children, let alone the grandchildren, to
see- so they say.
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 99
"Any way I look at it, I am forced to conclude that at least 95% of the
new SLR buyers are not going on to become serious amateurs. What's wrong
with photography that this is so, and why aren't the manufacturers, clubs,
magazines, and the rest of the indus try working on doing something to
keep these folks active in photography"
A couple of thoughts, my .02:
First, many advanced amateurs (not ALL) get very heavily into photography
in their early 20's. Full of youthful energy (and in some cases, not
enough dates...ahem) they become devotees with darkrooms. Later, when
married (perhaps with kids) the pressure of jobs, family and just getting
older take their toll. (Again not EVERYONE, some folks become masters of
their art.)
Since the boomers seem to distort everything by their sheer numbers, I
would assume that the same is true of photographic sales as well. In the
early 70's there were a hell of a lot of single guys (and women, but guys
seem to buy more gear) getting into c ameras. Many brought some stuff in
'nam, others just got into it. (Remember, we didn't have home computers
and video games to siphon off some youthful energy.)
In my opinion, there never have been that many "serious photographers,"
but a lot of "serious tinkerers." I include myself in that latter
category.
Another note: The current crop of SLRs is a close parallel to what Super
8 Sound Movie cameras were like JUST BEFORE camcorders wiped them out.
The movie cameras had sound, big zooms, fades, SFX, AF...you name it.
But the convenience of tape killed them
in a few months. Also, why paid $4.00 (in 1970's money) to process 3
minutes of film that cost another $4.00? That was part of the logic that
killed off "movies."
Today, SLRs have big zooms, SFX, AF...you name it. And as soon as
digicams drop in price ($99 Largan brand model due in August) and increase
in resolution to the point where an OK looking 8x10 can be printed (3 mega
pixels this fall?), watch out. Plus wh y pay $7.00 for 24 exposures on a
roll that cost $3.00? That's part of the logic that may kill off film.
(Then there is the shoddy quality of most machine prints...the industry
killing itself by paying minimum wage to people who then naturally don't
give a crap about the work they produce.)
You will find "serious" photographers in the digital arena a well.
Personally, I can't wait until a digital 4x5 back gets cheap enough for me
to stick on my Speed Graphic!
At one time "serious" photographers made "salon prints." But later, the
lack of available materials, the cost and the time required made it a
rarity. The same thing may be happening again.
Date: 14 Jun 1999
Sadly, I find that the death spiral seems to be accelerating, viz.:
Serious amateur photography doesn't exist in isolation. You have to have
various photographic resources to do photography. People have to come
into the hobby to replace those who leave and die off, if there is to be
a viable photoindustry over the long-term. The two are symbiotic - you
can't do photography without film and paper and photogear, and you can't
sell much photogear to people who aren't seriously interested in
photography.
Last month, we lost a long-time supplier of film and papers in Europe
(Fotochemika/Adox..). This month, Agfa film products got spun out on its
own largely because it was a money losing business. Neither is a good
sign.
Consumers in the USA buy 96% color print film, splitting the remaining 4%
between color slides, black and white, and all specialty films (Polaroid,
IR..). Now you understand why there are still no slide films for APS
users! We continue to lose much-loved classic films such as Ektar 25 and
VPS this last quarter alone. I could also talk about the on-going losses
of rich high silver content darkroom papers too.
If you use a 620 or 127 format camera, you have lost most film emulsions
and sources in the last year or so too. Ditto 126 cartridge, disc
cameras, and all but a few 110 camera films, also all in the last year or
so. Is APS next?
A Shutterbug review of the recent major European photoindustry show
concluded that there were few new camera introductions, and most of these
were niche cameras (panoramics..). I suggest that the manufacturers are
avoiding investing in new current technology cameras until they see how
the digital revolution is going to impact them.
Most current 35mm SLR and MF/LF cameras are "mature technology", from
which you take profits as you wear out the tooling. R&D investments are
obviously going more towards a digital future. Everybody is waiting for
the next generation of imaging chips to get the density up and the costs
down to where photo-quality images are available in a consumer price
range.
Should we be worried about the consumer masses going digital?
Optimists will predict the explosion of computerized digital cameras and
online image creation will leave many digital photo users wanting more
quality, and upgrading to real film and SLR cameras. Surely some users
will make this transition, but will it be enough to sustain the
photoindustry and our hobby?
As I noted in my "Death Spiral" article, 13 million point and shoot
camera sales didn't seem to increase the numbers of serious amateur
photographers. Why would non-film based digital technology do so when it
didn't happen with film based P+S users?
Pessimists will argue that most users will be happy with the quality of a
megapixel image from their $149 digital camera that can be posted directly
on the WWW. Those who want a print will simply have their $300+ Epson
photo-quality color computer printers print one out. Thanks to simple
software, they can crop and color correct, even sharpen the photo on their
home computer before printing it out. Instead of mailing out prints, they
simply send the photo as an email attachment to their relatives. For those
without a computer, they can simply dump the digital photos at their local
minilab and select which ones they want to print on the store's Epson
color printer or store images on disk or the WWW.
Based on what I have seen this last year, I am firmly in the pessimists
camp. The cheapy mini-lab prints have accustomed folks to accepting a low
quality print, often soft-focused to hide scratches that the lab's poor
processing has put on the negatives. A nice 300 dpi or better 24 bit
color print is quite acceptable, maybe even a step up for most consumers.
Given the huge cost savings of no film and no processing costs, plus no
delays and instant gratification, who can doubt that digital is the wave
of the future for many consumers?
If you are in the photo-industry, this is a disconcerting view. Intel
makes the chips. The lenses are tiny, fixed, low cost optics. Zeiss
quality isn't needed. The printers and computers are unrelated to our
photo-technology, as is the software used. What strengths can the current
photo-industry players sell us in a future digital photography world? Not
film or paper or processing. Not lenses. Surely not software or chips,
right? Are they dinosaurs? Hmmm?
This thread started out asking whether Rollei or Hasselblad will be with
us in 5-7 years? My argument is that they are already gone, as I think of
them.
Rollei has gone through a number of virtual bankruptcies, most recently
being bought out by a Korean company whose bean-counters are less
impressed by past Germanic glories than by present profit performance,
understandable given their moribund economy. The Hasselblad family also
read the tea-leaves, and reportedly have sold out control of Hasselblad
to a number of private investors (Swiss..).
In my opinion, both of these companies have already lost touch with their
historical roots through these trans-national sales. Consider the use of
Rollei's prestigious names on Korean made consumer cameras and lenses, or
the Hasselblad Xpan which looks a whole lot like a certain Fuji camera
under a Hasselblad logo. The old Rollei and Hasselblad companies would
never have done that, don't you agree?
The older cameras will be produced so long as the tooling holds out,
possibly with minimal improvements, if only to maximize the value and
profits from these resources. The names and trademarks will be exploited
until they no longer mean what they once did, meaning the names live on
long after the cameras that gave them prestige have been dropped. So to
me, Hasselblad and Rollei are already gone in spirit, if not in steel and
plastic and marketing ads.
Japan has marked their photography industry as a "sunset" industry, which
was hollowed out (moved offshore) and starved for investment and talented
staff. Big names in cameras (Canon, Ricoh..) now mostly make office
photocopier machines etc. rather than get their profits from camera
divisions. Third party lenses by Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma are now often
better than the OEM lenses they compete against, a far cry from the past!
In Germany, the last Pentacon plant was shut down in former East Germany
when the Prakticas that sold for $165 new were found to cost $650 to
produce. As noted above, Rollei was sold out too. Who's left making
cameras in Germany? Who's the next industry domino to fall?
Who is to blame for the current state of photography - the photoindustry
or the serious amateur photographers?
My personal view is that the photoindustry is mainly to blame for the
present precarious state of the hobby. For years, the photo-industry has
pursued a series of changes designed to force you and I to constantly
upgrade our cameras and lenses and photogear. The reason was simply
because they needed to generate more sales from a constantly declining
market, as 35mm SLR sales slipped from 2.6 million sold in 1981 to
725,000+ sold in 1993.
These changes raised short term profits, at the expense of the long-term
loss of amateur photographers and hobbyists with each forced
upgrade/change.
We have had a number of lens mount shifts which obsoleted tens of
millions of dollars worth of our hobbyist investments in lenses and
cameras. The rise of autofocus may not have solved many problems for some
of us, but it sure helped sell a lot of expensive new cameras and
lenses. That helped solve the industry's problems, but at what cost in
users?
At the high end, we saw many camera prices rise up to three times as fast
as the rate of inflation, year in and year out, for decades. Hasselblad
is one example I have documented elsewhere, but not the only one. Given
the minor nature of the improvements in their classic camera bodies and
lenses, how do they really justify the huge increases in cost, even in
constant dollar terms? On a positive note, the shift to a Rollei
controlled USA importer and distributor has cut their prices, and helped
cap medium format prices from some competitors such as Hasselblad. Is it
too little, too late?
At the other end, the photoindustry's new consumer APS format managed to
reduce the size of the film image while substantially raising film costs.
Few APS cameras take full advantage of major APS features (e.g., data
recording capability). Many mini-labs refused to invest in new APS
processing machines, retarding the spread and acceptance of the format.
You still can't buy slide film in APS formats etc., despite over a year
of empty promises. Lots of ads on TV seems to be where the money went...
While APS cameras are small, many 35mm cameras are similar in size and
nearly as easy to use with autoloading and DX coding. You can crop
panoramics from 35mm film too, and get higher quality at lower cost. I
suggest that the problems which APS solved were mainly those of the
photo-industry, and not those of you and I as consumers. Agree or
disagree?
What about the charges that people today don't have the time for hobbies?
I think that's partly true, but photography is not that time intensive,
is it? You can take pictures nearly anywhere, and I carry a camera
around and shoot some film almost every day. How much time does it take
to shoot a handful of rolls of film a month for the average
photographer? The cost of cameras has declined in real terms, so
economic barriers aren't the reason photography is in decline as a
hobby.
Demographically, there aren't many kids and twenty-somethings out there
in the current generation, compared to the baby boomers aging numbers.
Amateur photographer's average age is reportedly in the late 40s or early
50s, depending on the source, and getting older with every surveiy
(meaning fewer new young incoming users). In my mf/photostats.html page,
I note that the average household/family is spending less than 75 cents a
week on photography or under $38 per year. You can't buy many SLRs and
lenses and shoot much film on that, can you? ;-)
Personally, I think photography is about making pictures, which means
thinking about photographs and controlling the process. That creative
and technical challenge is what interests me. Paradoxically, the more
the camera does for me, the easier it seems to be to get a snapshot
instead of making a real picture. I find my medium format photos are
better precisely because I take more care in composing them and think
through what I am doing than with my more automatic 35mm cameras.
The current auto-everything cameras are aimed at tyros, not
photographers. Loading the film is automated, setting the film speed is
automatic, even focusing and exposure are done for you. What's left for
the photographer to do? Why should the camera have all the fun?
The lack of popularity of photography also saddens me personally, since I
know that many folks in our culture don't have a really creative or
artistic outlet. I can't paint or make sculpture, but I can make
creative photos, and so can most people with study and application.
Photography could be the kind of creative and artistic outlet many people
yearn for, but haven't found.
Today we have folks shooting their weddings with six-packs of disposable
cameras, thanks to promotions of the photo-industry. Others use home
video cameras, unaware of future archival storage issues of video tape.
How many mini-labs process their prints so they won't fade away after a
few years in the sun? My best underwater photography slides are already
starting to fade. How about your negatives and slides? If photography is
about keeping memories, as the ads go, shouldn't the film and prints last
at least a generation, let alone a lifetime? By the time the lawsuits
start flying, it will be too late!
Another issue I have addressed is the intentional obsolescence of current
high technology cameras by limited life LCD panels and chip components.
LCD display panels don't last forever; many have lives of 10 years or so.
That's 10 calendar years, whether on or off, so spare parts go bad just
sitting around too. If a custom chip fails in your camera, and it is no
longer supported, you have a high tech paperweight too. While you and I
like to think of high end cameras as investments, the photoindustry
benefits more if they become obsolete and unrepairable, thereby forcing
us to upgrade to new ones, right? Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Some of us also wonder why we didn't hear more about the plans to
obsolete all our mercury battery using photogear by making mercury
batteries illegal to make in the USA. Not just classic cameras, but
light meters and other gear suddenly became obsolete paperweights for
most consumers. Now they'll have to buy new ones and upgrade all those
lenses too, right? Do you wonder why the photoindustry didn't publicize
this more and ask for consumers to fight for a waiver or alternative plan?
Given the high levels of pollution from many home darkrooms, anybody
still using a darkroom want to make a bet on how much longer all these
hazardous chemicals are going to be available for sale? Duh? Think the
photoindustry will warn us about that before or after it is too late?
Will the mini-labs be able to reach E.P.A. limits on effluents, go out of
business, or switch to digital? Maybe they'll mail out the film to Mexico?
How about those new killer Xray machines at the airports. Did the photo
industry staff who "reviewed" these machines blow it? How many folks
will find out about the killer xrays by having their once in a lifetime
trip films ruined? Maybe you heard about it on the Internet, but months
went by before anything showed up in the photomagazines. Now there's a
new super xray machine called L-3 coming, but you don't want to hear more
bad news now, I'm sure.
I see these screw-ups as proof that there isn't any dark coordinated
photoindustry conspiracy. I'm thinking more in terms of the gang that
couldn't shoot straight here. If they had a clear view of the future, and
a gameplan for growing marketshare while bringing along the masses of
current users and serious amateur photographers, I would feel better about
all this. But clearly they don't. Instead, they seem happy to burn many
thousands of current users with obsolescence and format changes, without
any clear plan on where to find serious photography users to replace us.
Maybe it is just me, but the photoindustry doesn't even seem terribly
good at listening to their remaining customers, do they? A lot of the
current autofocus consumer cameras are obviously the design of marketing
committees, not someone who actually shoots film for fun or a living.
Limited resources seem to be squandered on solutions to problems most of
us don't have (the Arcbody or Flexbody comes to mind here). Who comes up
with these AF camera control interfaces and button locations, anyway? Duh?
I personally doubt that ANY of the current photoindustry players will be
major players some ten years into the future of digital photography.
None of them seem to have the "fire in their bellies" needed to succeed
in making such a huge transition. It is all a faceless bureaucracy, with
all that implies. Nor do they have the right technology to lead either.
Too bad, like many users, I kind of like the cameras and their makers by
extension for past glories and efforts, but they haven't done much for us
lately, but everything for themselves it often seems. Agree or disagree?
Somebody with that "fire" is going to come in and make a crusade out of
digital photography, but it isn't going to be a player in the current
industry, I'd bet. And cameras and lenses are going to be the smallest
part of the equation too. That won't leave much "photo" for the
photoindustry to play up their strengths and technology.
In short, I think the death spiral of serious amateur photography
continues at an every increasing pace. In the last year and a half since
posting the original article, we have seen the abandonment of many films
and papers, along with such formats as 620, 127, 126, disc, and 110 all
going obsolete or endangered species.
More importantly, after seeing the quality possible with the new Epson
color printers, I'm convinced film and paper faces huge marketshare
losses soon. If film and paper sales collapse, what's left of the
industry?
Why should consumers use medium format cameras and lenses, or 35mm
Nikons.., if they can get such surprising quality from a low cost computer
printer and wallet sized digital camera? Why pay big bucks for high
quality lenses where the differences won't show up in the photos online?
Who needs Tiffen filters with photoshop software? See the photoindustry's
problem here?
When the marginal amateur photographers switch to digital cameras and
Epson prints, will there be enough of us left to keep the film and paper
and conventional cameras and lenses in production? I doubt it, don't you?
We have mostly already dropped out due to high costs, or obsoleting of
our gear, or the high cost of keeping up with every new change they can
think of. Only now, the demographics are against them being able to
recruit enough new buyers to replace us. Digital photography is going to
grab most of those new and younger users, leaving the conventional
photoindustry with very little of value to sell in a digital dominated
world.
That's why I call it a death spiral.... ;-)
------- The End!--------
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999
Think of what your portrait photographer or wedding photographer could
do with a digital back on a medium format camera. You could take your
wedding photos digitally and print them out on a high quality printer on
site or in your van and have prints to give to the couple and their
guests before everyone goes home. Same thing with on location portrait
photography, you could do your "proofs" on the computer screen and show
your client the results, and reshoot the photos the same day if need be.
No more clients waiting for their proofs to see if they're happy with
their poses.
As far as "big name" european camera companies selling out
and producing cameras with asian companies, you forgot to mention the
Leica digital camera based on the Fuji MX-700.
Since the average point and shooter rarely gets prints made
any larger than the standard 3 1/2"X5" or 4"X6" you might just see a
mass conversion of them to digital photography once the 2-3 megapixel
cameras get into the $300-$400 price range. The only thing holding
people back from digital photography now is the price of the cameras,
the lack of zoom lenses in the range they're used to on point and
shoots, and the high cost of the typical smart media storage cards.
People get turned off with digital cameras when you tell them that a
decent sized storage card for their camera will cost around $100, and if
you go on vacation and want to shoot lots of pictures without having to
download your photos into a computer you will need to take along several
expensive storage cards.
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999
I can't say I'm sold on Bob M.'s ideas here. Contax just spent big money
developing a 645 camera system. Pentax just updated their 645 and 6x7
cameras, Mamiya came out with the 7 and 7 II rangefinders, Fuji and Kodak
are putting significant R&D investment in continuing to develop new and
improved film emulsions. Nikon came out with the F100. etc. etc.
Clearly these companies don't see the demise of cameras as we know them
so soon that they won't be able to recoup their R&D investment and make
a profit to boot.
It appears that CCD technology is going to be smaller than film for a
given level of resolution. To capture the information on a high quality
35mm transparency would require about 3200x4800 24-bit pixels. that's
about 15M pixels. Today's affordable digital cameras are in the 1.5-2.5M
pixel range, and the CCD's are tiny. It appears that a larger one of the
same density that was large enough for 35mm image quality would be about
12mm x 18mm, or about half the size of a 35mm format image. This means
that once the technology is mature enough, this will be the standard,
small format. My expectation is that medium format quality will
eventually be obtainable digitally with 35mm optics, since the CCDs will
be half the size of film format, so the resolution and quality of medium
format will be a digital CCD about the size of 35mm format. I expect the
major 35mm players to convert their systems to digital, and people will
get medium format quality with their nikon lens collections.
This means that medium format optics will eventually deliver large format
quality with digital image capture.
I'd say this is 8 or 10 years out, maybe sooner, but it will happen
eventually. Photography as we know it will be about the same, but images
will be processed with computers instead of darkrooms.
The format I am most skeptical of surviving the digital revolution is
large format. I think the camera companies expect APS to be what evolves
into the digital cameras for the masses. APS format lenses will have
plenty of coverage for consumer digital quality. More serious
photographers will use their optics that cover 35mm to cover similar size
CCDs that will deliver better than 35mm quality, and the high end, "large
format" of digital photography will be medium format optics. 6x9 view
cameras will be the "big guns" of landscape photography or table top work.
What isn't clear is what lens mounts will survive. there surely
will be some 35mm and medium format optics that could be used in this way,
but which won't attach to any digital image collectors.
The good news is that camera equipment will get lighter weight. The bad
news is that stuff will become obsolete at a rapid pace.
J. Albert
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999
[email protected] (Heavysteam) wrote:
I think what everyone is forgetting is that people in general are very
lazy, i.e. if you can shoot a roll of 35mm and drop it off at the 1hr. lab
for $10 and then pick up your prints (4x6) - life is great!!! Now how
many of you folks have actually messed around with digital photo stuff -
believe me it is not foolproof - i.e. the average consumer will continue
to shoot film and drop it off at the local mini-lab and not have to mess
with scanning and or downloading images into their stupid computer to get
their photos. Case in point I was reading an article about how Kodak many
years ago promoted "in your house photo developing" which at the time was
futuristic - guess what? it never took off for the general public. Now do
you really think that John Doe Public is going to sit at home and spend
2-3 hours of farting around in photoshop and printing the family vacation
photos out on his/her HP color inkjet? when the same crap can come from a
one hour mini-lab? You Decide (I personnally think that film will be for
at least, oh I don't know , maybe 10 - 15 years)
Kent Whiting
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999
Some extra thoughts:
Colour film has layers, CCDs do not - which means that you need at least
3 pixels (usually 4) of a CCD to equal 'one pixel' on the film.So you do
need a lot of pixels and the quality and spectral response of the colour
filters on the CCD pixels will suffer the same colour gamut limitations
of todays film scanners unless they employ more colours.
The weight of digital cameras will be dictated by battery technology
which is likely to progress more slowly so that signifiant weight
savings may not happen. The best chance for weight savings will be in
reduced lens sizes.
Cleary however, film and paper are on their way out for the consumer
market. The camera manufacturers are updating their film equipment in
order to maintain market share so that when they adopt the digital stuff
they will have a customer base to appeal to.
GI
....
From: [email protected] (gary gaugler)
Len Cook [email protected] wrote:
We probably discussed the price points and product mix of MF some time
ago. It might be worth re-introduction at this time since hard data
would indeed be useful for obsolescence value.
For those of us who use and depend on MF, the selection set is very
limited. Look at the number of MF makers, models and lens options.
Then compare this to the number of different bodies and lens options
available from each of the larger number of 35mm SLR makers. This is
no big shocker...we all know that MF is a small market. LF is even
smaller. The MF makers of today either have a niche, historical
reputation and/or high pricing that keeps them profitable. There
isn't anything substantially different about a Hasselblad 200 or
Rollei 6000 or Bronica or XXX MF from a Nikon N-90s or F-100 or F-5 or
Canon EOS or Canon XXX that would demand that the MF be priced higher
(usually a lot higher). The reason that they are priced higher is
certainly and simply the low volume of sales of MF. Its just a
numbers game in this respect.
This has severe and far reaching consequences for us. Inevitably,
there is a shakeout in the marketplace. It happens all the time.
Look at LF. Makers come and go like phases of the moon. why? Low
volume and prices that are below cost or just breaking even. Can't
stay in business that way. Linhof does by making good products but
charging high prices. This does not mean they are ripping us off.
More like they know the cost of the product and then mark it up to
make a decent return. That will keep them in business as long as
there are customers who will pay these prices.
But I digress...back to MF. The point is that if there is a brand and
a model or even a brand of MF that sells more than any other, the odds
are that this will be a survivor. Irrespective of what I like and
use, I would be foolish to invest in a system where the writing on the
wall says that it will not be around for a long time. If Henry has
the writing on the wall, please, lets see it.
Looking out 5-7 years from now, I would be surprised if Hasselblad
were still in business. Same for Rollei. That would then leave
Pentax, Mamiya, and possibly Bronica and Contax as our only prime
choices. Ignoring personal preferences, features, etc., etc., if it
does not exist, you cannot buy it. Parts will become difficult to
find. I see this all the time in the electronics and microscopy
world; I'm sure you do too.
My crystal ball is very cloudy. I just know that Hasselblad got
obscenely expensive for a comprehensive system. It got to the point
where I was afraid to even use it or take it anywhere. That is dumb,
unacceptable and a waste of money. The Pentax 645n and 67 is a great
interchangeable system duo or even good by themselves. The Mamiya 645
is also good. It all boils down to paying your money and taking your
chances.
Food for thought.
Gary Gaugler, Ph.D.
[Ed. note: thanks to Ralf et. al. for supplying info on France
stats...]
After those recent debates about film being discontinued, film vs.
digital, market shares etc., here are a few numbers, fresh from France,
for the last year:
- over 2 million compact cameras have been sold, including an
astonishing 40 % of APS cameras
- in '99, the French have bought 280,000 SLRs and 340,000
lenses
- 180,000 digital cameras sold over the same period represent
an increase of 104 % over the previous year
- for the first time, turnover in the digital sector was
higher than with conventional equipment (!!!)
- the good news: a 20 % increase in medium format sales
- the bad news: a mere 1,300 MF cameras were sold
- 141 million films were sold
- b/w films have a market share of 3 %, colour slide 4 %
Source: R�ponses Photo, may 2000
Cheers,
--
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
thanks for the post, Ralf et. al.... see corresponding USA data at:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/economics.html and
it would be interesting to know if that 20% more medium format sales are
for Kiev 60 and Kiev 88 and similar low cost eastern imports, or Rolleis!
;-) ;-) Care to bet? ;-)
So we have only 4% color slide film sales, only 3% black and white film
out of 141 million film sales - including 35mm and 120/220 right?
only 1400 MF out of 280,000 SLR sales and 1.6 million 35mm and 400,000
AP/S
only 1400/280,000 or 1/2% of major camera sales were to medium format
(even up 20%) not counting consumer 35mm P&S or APS sales...
141 million film sales; but 4% color slides is only 5.64 million rolls;
assume NOBODY with a Point and Shoot or APS camera used slide film, and
color slides were split in above proportions (1/2% medium format, 99.5% 35
SLR); that suggests 1/2% times 5.64 million = 28,200 rolls of color slide
film. Now 120 film sales are much more than 220 slide film sales - say ten
to one? - esp. among amateur users. That's circa under 3,000 rolls of 220
slide film - even assuming NOBODY with a 35mm P&S used any slide film. If
those millions of users used any, the numbers ought to be similar, only
worse...
recall that there are a number of 220 slide film emulsions which must be
sharing the market (here estimated at circa 3,000 rolls/year in France)
and several major mfgers - fuji, kodak,... 25 ASA, 64 ASA, 80 ASA, 100
ASA, 200 ASA, 400 ASA... - I'd be surprised if we had more than 500 film
sales total for each of the major slide emulsions.
Same analysis for 3% black and white sales, only more brands, fewer sales
per emulsion, maybe 300 film sales for each emulsion?
France has 60.9 million inhabitants (22%) of the USA population; so
multiply by 5 to get optimistic USA estimates...
In the USA, 17 billion photos by 177 million cameras or under 500 million
rolls of 36 exposure - 96% of consumer film sales were color print; if
anything, it appears the french are shooting more than we are per
capita. Granted, perhaps professionals are shooting more than amateurs,
but whatever it is, the big sales have to be in APS and 35mm print film...
[see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/photostats.html for sources..]
I don't find much here to suggest that we should feel buoyed by such
numbers of 220 or slide and black and white film sales. Do you? We are
clearly talking about only low thousands of 220 color slide film sales per
emulsion; ditto for black and white print films. More importantly,
forcing us to switch to 120 film instead of 220 won't mean much if any
lost film sales - it isn't like we are going to go digital at $55,000 for
a dicomed back, right? Lower inventory costs, lower production costs, and
potentially higher profits.
The 220 print film stats are buried in the consumer print film sales, but
again, I'd be surprised if it is not also a tempting target for aggressive
cost cutters...
and as others have noted, it will be denied vehemently until it is
officially announced ;-) grins bobm
Japans photo industry produced in 1999
Of these were
The 33.9 M. is a bit clouded as it also encompasses the Single Use
Cameras,
and will also cover the countless numbers of small compact cameras.
Remarkable is the # of SLR's, which is down from 3 million in its heydays
in
the '70 en '80. It is stable for the moment, so it seems.
The medium format market is very small, as it is carved up by many
companies, like Hasselblad Xpan, Contax, Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica, Fuji and
the 4x5 inch field cameras. In a recent note, Zeiss remarked that the
Contax 465 is a great success, so that must be at the expense of the
others,
Digital is no surprise, but monthly figures for early 2000 show around
300
thousand/month, that wold make more than 3.5 million for 2000. The value
for
digital cameras in 1999 is three times the value of the SLR market, so it
is
easy to see where the Japanese are heading.
APS has a figure of 1.5 Million, -2% and in value is far below the SLR
segment.
Some food for thought I suppose. Reflect on Leica which sells 12000 M and
6000 R a year, and compare to the full medium and over market.
Erwin
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000
Hi Bob,
Long time since we have corresponded. I read your "Death Spiral of
Serious Photography," which was interesting. I have to comment, I don't
think serious photography is on the decline, instead I think it is part of
a natural shift. Think about it. Kodak put the camera in everyone's
hands
with the Brownie (in 1900). The SLR put a camera with interchangeable
lenses in the hands of amateurs when they became lower in cost.
P&S the same, because all the people including SLR users are not all pros.
The pros are using medium format andmoving digital with 35mm SLRs and
medium format camera that accept digital backs. Those that bought an AE-1
in the 70s wanted a cheap way to take good family shots. When automated
P&S cameras arrived, they bought those because they were even simpler to
use. Now APS is in vogue, and by the way FUJI did have an APS slide film
but it simply did not sell. Bear in mind, that in the heyday of AE-1,
most users opted for print film not slide film so they could show of their
photos. Digital P&S are the next step in the evolution and film will
eventually disappear much like the vinyl LP did.
Hope you don't mind my comments. Its similar to the car industry. At one
time there were 3000 manufacturers, now there are 3 and imports. Demand
is still there, but the greater demand is for an inespensive car for the
average person as opposed to the Cadillac or Lincoln which is for the more
affluent or limo services.
I still use my Rapid Omega and TLRs, but if I could get a digital back for
those I would use it in an instance. Eventually I will sell off and go
all digital, its just matter of time.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Here's the problem, Gene. If only 1% of the shooting is done on
traditional film, that's just not enough to support companies like Kodak,
Ilford, Agfa, etc., continuing to make the film. Demand for black and
white film has shown serious decline already in the last few years and
shows no signs of turning around. As I mentioned recently, Agfa has
discontinued their APX 25 from lack of demand, and others will certainly
follow.
As for black and white photo papers, demand for them is plummeting as
well.
Facilities to make film and paper require really big investments to build,
run, and update. I just don't see that big money going into such a
rapidly shrinking market.
Similarly for cameras. I was told last week by a spokesperson from a
major camera company that the R & D costs for a new 35mm SLR were from
five to ten million dollars. The company sees no future for investing
that much money in a film camera, and has put R & D for film cameras on
hold. The money will instead go into digital product R & D.
Now I'm not saying that film and photo paper will vanish overnight, or
even in the next five years, but at some point the demand will pass that
all important tipping point and it will no longer make economic sense to
continue production. Personally, I see photo film having a much longer
future than photo paper. It will not be too long before the majority of
prints turned out by photo finishers will be from high speed inkjet
printers and other non-traditional technologies. The first such machines
are rolling off production lines now.
Bob
[Ed. note: Thanks to Mike for sharing these insights!...]
Robert,
I just read your post about the death of serious photography. I
agree. I would like to make a few comments. First, I ran into an old
classmate from elementary school that I have not seen in 30+ years. She
was a very high level executive in the marketing department at Kodak.
According to her almost all photography will be digital, she did not say
when. I was left with the impression that the intentional death of film
based photography is being planned by marketing execs. IMO This is the
foremost influence in the death of film.
The next influence is the NON generation Xr's. The current crop of 20
somethings are beyond gen -X. This group is the consumer of tomorrow. I
spent a considerable amount of time in a pub that caters to the NON gen-X,
I always suspected this group as having radically different values,
however having spending some time with them on their turf my suspicians
turned to a shocking realization.What might have been the hobby/
profession/ art of the 60s-70s-80s youth, a 35mm slr loaded with tri-x has
been traded by this new consumer/artist.The new art/consumption is body
modification,scarring. piercing etc or computer generated noise they call
music! The computer is as much a part of their upbringing as MTV is the
defining authority of cultural mores. This large market that is seriously
digitally addicted, would prefer to pierce a body part and view undetected
theft of coprighted works as art, deserve digital! The marketing execs
plan on delivering digital to them in a very big way.
The third influence on the demise of film is the convenience of digital
for the Professional market. Shoot the product in a low rent low wage
State then email the preview to the marketing firm in NY or? This is a no
brainer. Here I think you will see companies fight for the digital back
trade much like the third party lens makers, this may keep many medium
format bodies useful.
In summary, the new art status symbol for the young is the most unusual
body piercing not a leica. The commercial imagemaker must go digital or
retire and the conventional darkroom will be considered an alternartive
process and priced accordingly. Don't sell that Pentax 67 there may be a
digital back for it by Vivitar for 1800.00 that can compete with the
current 23,000.00 Foveon camera and right now the really smart money is
buying piercing studios and not Edward Weston prints.
Mike Walker, Art/Photography student San Diego City College, 45 years
young
From: "Tom" [email protected]
We're on the cusp of a technological revolution. Film is clearly on the
way out, but the space hasn't been filled by digital. If I was a dealer in
pro equipment I would be cautious about getting caught with an inventory
of used film equipment. The current crop of digital equipment will lose
value quickly as well, in the same way that used computers lose value. Pro
cameras used to be like other industrial equipment--trucks, litho presses
and cameras, machine tools, etc. They obsolesced gracefully with lots of
backwards compatibility.
Last month I was speaking with the dean of local industrial
photofinishers, fifty years in the business. His industrial clientele is
drying up fast. Although he rents seats at a roomful of PhotoShop
machines, he says that most of his traditional finishing business has been
supplanted by in-house digital processing at local industry and government
agencies. He warned me to sell my film equipment quickly. In five years,
he says it will have value only as doorstops. He says film won't
disappear, but rolls and processing will be several times as costly as at
present and much harder to find. Remember 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 sheet film? or
620?
hether all this comes to pass on schedule is uncertain, of course. I
recall that HP's finance people concluded that an inventory of computers
depreciates 1% per week. That discovery changed their approach to
inventory management. It does look like digital cameras will obsolesce
more like computers and less like (say) dump trucks. And if dealers
believe that it's going to happen, it will change their behavior, just as
HP's changed.
E-Bay certainly hasn't helped the dealer, simply because it has created a
mass, well-informed market. But I recall when Shutterbug first appeared
and created a similar effect.
Tom
"Mike" [email protected] wrote
Robert:
I believe you are correct in your assessment of EBAY's impact on local
camera stores. I also live in the Dallas area. A few years ago when I
first became interested in photography I would frequently visit the
KEH store in Dallas and also the Wolf Camera store on Harry Hines that
carries used equipment. I actually bought a 400mm Tokina lens at the
Harry Hines store before I learned enough about EBAY to realize that I
could get better prices there. Yes, I think EBAY is overpriced. I have
purchased about 15 items on EBAY, all about 1/3 less than the prices
offered at the used camera stores and at camera shows. Don't know that
I could repurchase those same items today on EBAY. The prices seem to
be outrageously high today.
This same revolution is also taking place in several other areas. I
know work out of my home thus saving me the cost of office space. (OK,
I actually work out of my old house since my new house is not big
enough.) I think the percentage of people working out of their homes
will only increase during the next 20 years. The internet is changing
much in the business world in addition to simply retail sales.
Regards,
Doug Fejer
PS: I have read numerous posts of yours over the years and have
visited your website. As we both live in Dallas I hope to some day
meet you.
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001
I can't see that eBay has had any impact at all on the death of the local
camera shop. Here in Springfield, Illinois, a small city currently with a
population of about 115,000 people, we have NO serious photoshops at all.
And this is the capital of Illinois (and the home of Abraham Lincoln, but
he hasn't been active much lately). We have MANY working photographers in
this town.
At one time, we had two very good shops. But they both closed about 20
years ago, long before the internet was invented.
I attribute the loss to improved transportation and the credit card. It
is easier to go to the larger cities in search of the "good deal". And
credit cards made it really convenient and SAFE to purchase through
mail-order. The lack of good repairmen is a result of there being little
to repair in modern equipment, and the fact that there are fewer local
camera shops to act as selling agents and referral services for them.
--
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001
....
OTOH, here our "local" store has been expanding in the ten years or so
it's been in business. Just keeps getting larger and larger. The have
a good selection of used cameras at prices competitive with KEH,
different paper, both silver and digital, and Canon, Olympus, and Pentax
film and digital cameras. They seem to use Cameraworld as their price
guide on most things, a little higher than B&H. They also use E-bay to
sell used equipment that hasn't sold on site.
They also have a pro level lab on site, I can get E-6 in an hour or so,
not to mention the usual C-41 stuff. A lot of the local pros use them.
It's nice to see an independent thriving, but it is also the only
dedicated camera store in a town of over 100,000 and one of maybe seven
in the San Diego area.
Skip
--
From: Karl [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: camera stores endangered species? Re: are we becoming extinct?
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002
Traditionally, the lowest margin has been on the cameras and lenses.
The camera is sold for a small profit, banking on the fact that
additional lenses, a tripod, camera bag, film and processing sales
will follow. Repeat business is where the store profits from. With
digital coming along the opportunity for repeat business diminishes.
They don't come back for extras and hardly come back for print work.
The market is changing and stores are having a hard time keeping up
with the changes.
As to Ebay, I'd attribute more of the decline of traditional stores to
companies like Best Buy, Sam's, Wal-Mart, Target etc. There are so
many places where you can purchase a film or digital camera, BESIDES
all the spots on the web and Ebay. They all contribute to sales being
snaked away from the traditional stores. We are a society of a 'gotta
find the cheapest price' mentality and people don't want to pay a
little extra at the local shop where they have a better shot at
getting some sensible assistance with their new purchase. The local
camera shop probably has a few folks who have been shooting for a few
years and can explain what f-stops are all about and recommend the
right film to shoot for the kids school play. Can't get that on ebay.
Which brings me to my last point - If you're comfortable researching
equipment on the Net and buying from B&H or anywhere else then go
ahead. If you want some info, want to hold the thing in your hand
before you buy it and help support a local company and the local
economy then visit your neighborhood camera store. If the trend
continues, the local shops will all close up and you'll HAVE to buy
from sources on the internet.
Karl
karl at kpphotography dot com
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>Old style film oriented camera stores seem to be an endangered species
>around here, and the news on Wall Street Camera cratering, the notes on
>Helix and other stores cutting their film and darkroom store areas to
>expand digital and so on are all part of a trend responding to sales in
>digital. While only 4% of the cameras, digital is 40% of the value...
>
>I think the traditional stores are suffering more from Ebay competition;
>some store owners have reported they made only modest markups on new film
>camera and lens sales, more $$ on accessories, and made major $$ on their
>used gear sales and repairs, buying for 1/3rd to 1/2 the expected selling
>price. So profits on used gear sales can be higher than new gear sales.
>
>Today, those sales are going to ebay, cutting out the stores. At the local
>camera shows, the dealers are more eager to buy (cheaply ;-) or trade than
>to sell, and many are trying to resell on ebay themselves. The falling
>prices on ebay have also squeezed the used gear profits for those stores
>trying to dump their unsold cosmetically bad gear via ebay (right? you
>know, the stuff they couldn't sell in years in their stores? ;-)
>
>I suspect we will see a few "pro" stores survive in each major city area;
>to service pro accounts and big $ amateurs; the rest of us may be using
>mail order from B&H ;-) The collapse in used gear depts may impact issues
>like gear rentals (e.g. from used stock vs. investments in capital for
>rental stock) and repair dept availability (new gear that breaks goes back
>to the factory under warranty, so who needs a repair shop if you don't
>do rentals or sell used gear?) Good for independent repairers, I guess? ;-)
>
>grins bobm
From: James Post [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: camera stores endangered species? Re: are we becoming extinct?
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002
RD wrote:
>
> Karl [email protected] wrote:
>
> >They don't come back for extras and hardly come back for print work.
>
> You can blame part of this on the stores themselves. They should be
> telling their customers about the impermanence of home inkjet prints.
> Instead, they're selling inkjet printers.
>
> JL
>
Some of us do. I work for a small chain (three stores) in Wisconsin. We
sell a fairly complete variety of merchandise and we do both analog and
digital printing. We do indeed sell ink jet paper.
However, when people inquire about the differences in permanence amongst
the various materials, I do tell them that nothing equals real photo
paper. I do tell them that silver halide black and white kicks the snot
out of chromogenic bw, at least most of the time, at least in my opinion
:-) I give them whatever information I have at the time, backed by
current research and I try to keep current as new information comes in,
such as when Wilhelm goofed on their accelerated aging tests for Epson
pigment-based inks.
Of course, I also own my own photo business, so am not terribly
concerned if I don't sell the high-commission items. I have no desire to
sabotage profit for the owners, but I feel (as do many of us who work
here) that an educated buyer lays out more money, because they tend to
come back as repeat customers and when they buy, they buy quality.
Are we MF shooter endangered? I do not believe so, at least not to the
point of extinction. There is another small chain of locally-owned
stores in my town and between us, we stock a lot of film, 35mm to LF
(although most of the LF stuff is not kept in stock - there is a decided
lack of demand for it). Most of the pros here, myself included, shoot
film and most of our clients want film. This excludes, of course,
product and photojournalism shooters, where digital is king. And while
some of us are experimenting with digital in wedding and portrait usage,
results are quite mixed. Indeed, many of my clients make sure that I do
shoot film. They tell me they are less than pleased with the samples
shown them by the shooters who have gone digital. They demand the
quality of MF film.
That being said, as the technology improves, the "I want it now"
instant-gratification wants of the average consumer will force most of
us into adopting digital. From a business standpoint, sales do tend to
increase with the faster turnaround times digital offers. And showing
different crops on a laptop to clients, days after the wedding...!
Perhaps only amateurs will be able to continue using film and pros will
use it only at specific request or for their own work. Perhaps film,
like black and white, will be relegated to "art" usage. But...
Black and white is more popular now than in years past. Kodak has a new
coating plant and improved(?) emulsions. Ilford remains strong in bw.
Students here are still using film cameras and traditional chemical
processing alongside digital methods. Many of the store's customers have
bought digital but find a need for their film cameras as their interest
in photography is rekindled. And there are still many millions of film
cameras out there and millions of them still being sold. Extinct? Not
until there is no market and that, I think, will be a long time in
coming.
My two cents!
Jim
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
From: "R. Peters"
the under 55 lack of popularity is another good point; I also don't see
these folks at camera shows either, but think this is one of those issues
that the industry should be cooperatively addressing by promoting
photography
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: thanks + obsolescence blurb Re: good points... Re: Death Spiral
of Serious Amateur Photography - Facts and Observations
To: R. Peters [email protected]
To: [email protected]
From: Jack Gurner [email protected]
Subject: Re: Death Spiral
GURNER Photography
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (JC17FL)
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: thanks and reply re: good points Re: Death Spiral of Serious
Amateur Photography - Facts and Observations
To: JC17FL [email protected]
Singapore fits in my first world group, given their annual income even
after the recent crashes ;-) So does hong kong etc. But these are small
population exceptions. Betcha more F5s sold in either than in all of
black Africa? But seriously, there are lots of stripped models which
find their way into US market, esp. interesting if like me you like all
mechanical cameras ;-) looking for an FE10 right now ;-) I think this is
good, because a good minolta clone in china as currently being made might
be the last source for SLRs via imports to US in ten years at the current
rate. But don't expect the third world to bail us out ;-) Top of line to
total sales numbers has been on a constant decline, partially explaining
rising costs per my death spiral model ;-) price is important everywhere
I can't see how long we can mass produce cameras that cost 7 times as
much as the similar auto-featured cameras for entry level amateurs.
Subject: hi
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998
steve
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (CharlesW99)
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: thanks for good points - Re: Death Spiral of Serious Amateur
Photography - Facts & Observations
To: CharlesW99 [email protected]
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 02:21:26 EST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: thanks for good points
From: Garry Lee [email protected]
Subject: Re: Death Spiral of Serious Amateur Photography - Facts &
Observations
Date: 1 Jan 1998 09:24:11 GMT
From: rmonagha (Robert Monaghan)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Death Spiral
From: "John Petrush" [email protected]
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998
--
From: [email protected] (Gene Windell)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 00:55:03 GMT
[email protected]
:
:
From: "John Austin" [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
From: brad [email protected]
-Brad
From: Chuck Hoffman [email protected]
Chuck Hoffman
From: [email protected] (Cyber Ghost)
Cheers.
From: Tony Galt [email protected]
Subject: Re: Death Spiral of Serious Amateur Photography
From: Jeff Spirer [email protected]
Jeff Spirer
From: "Noel J. Bergman" [email protected]
[...] it might very well be that the upgrading that is being done is
into USED 35mm ''pro'' equipment because new equipt. is unaffordable. The
statistics did not cover what the sales levels were for used equipt.
either.
From: David Rosen [email protected]
From: M. KUO [email protected]
[email protected]
From: Don Forsling [email protected]
From: R.C. McMahon [email protected]
So, let's just all enjoy our little hobbies while we can, certain in the
knowledge that our children will find our interests incredibly boring!
Subject: Re: Death Spiral of Serious Amateur Photography - Facts &
Observations
Date: 4 Jan 1998 04:43:05 GMT
Monaghan writes:
Subject: Re: Death Spiral of Serious Amateur Photography - Facts &
Observations
Subject: Re: Death Spiral of Serious Photography
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 17:45:45 -0500
From: "Charles E. Love, Jr." [email protected]
Subject: Future of Photography
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:29:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Monaghan
From: Robert Erickson [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ink jet paper and supplies
http://panoramic.net
From: [email protected] (lemonade)
[1] No wonder photography has declined in popularity!!!
Date: Mon Feb 08 22:40:55 CST 1999
From: "Roger M. Wiser" [email protected]
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Old Klunkers, Digital Cameras,etc
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: "Death Spiral"
From: John Albino [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Great analysis on your site
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999
From: John Albino [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: I'd appreciate your thoughts
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]
>I find it somewhat strange that among Nikons last lens releases there
>were/are eight zooms... and only one prime. Is this a sign that Nikon doesn't
>care about prime lenses anymore? I mean, there are huge gaps in their lineup
>of primes,
>
>The missing primes are IMO:
>
>14/2.8 AF-D (or another replacement for the 13/5.6)
>35/1.4 AF-D
>50/1.2 AF-D
>24/2 AF-D
>
>200/2 AF-S
>300/4 AF-S
>400/5.6 AF-S
>400/3.5 AF-S
>100-400 AF-S (I know, a zoom, but it's simply a shame that they don't offer
>a real telephoto zoom)
>
>and maybee a state of the art lens like a 800/4 AF-S or 500/2.8 AF-S
>
>What is going on with Nikon? With the release of the F/N60, the AF-S zooms
>and the F100 it seemed, that they had come back alive but now they fell
>asleep again?
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: markup on Nikon lenses
Date: 13 May 1999
>For items like cars, it's easy to find out the dealer's cost. I have
>no idea how to find the equivalent information about Nikon lenses.
>For example, I see B&H list an 80-200 f2.8D for $849.95, while a local
>store is asking $975. I can assume that B&H isn't selling at a loss,
>but how much do they have to pay Nikon? Does the local store have to
>go through a distributor, who adds his own markup? Does B&H?
>It would surely be easier to bargain if I knew what the store's markup
>was. Can anyone provide some numbers?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: markup on Nikon lenses
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999
> For items like cars, it's easy to find out the dealer's cost. I have
> no idea how to find the equivalent information about Nikon lenses.
> For example, I see B&H list an 80-200 f2.8D for $849.95, while a local
> store is asking $975. I can assume that B&H isn't selling at a loss,
> but how much do they have to pay Nikon? Does the local store have to
> go through a distributor, who adds his own markup? Does B&H? It would
> surely be easier to bargain if I knew what the store's markup was. Can
> anyone provide some numbers?
Seattle, Washington (zone 7)
[email protected]
http://home1.gte.net/tpeach/NoPlaceLikeHome.htm
Owner, Manual Focus Nikon Mailing List: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: KODAK INVESTORS MEETING
Date: 29 Apr 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Will Hasselblad and Rollei be around in 5-7 years?
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999
> Gary G suggested that he had doubts that Hassy and Rollei would be in MF
> in 5-7 years, given their pricing etc. I have no idea. But I believe
> Hassy is a publicly owned company, and so one might check its annual
> reports and stock price. The same for Rollei?(but there there is a much
> wider range of equipment than MF).
H�kan Gunnarsson
G�teborg/Gothenburg, Sweden
From: P�l Jensen [email protected]
[2] Re: Art Wolfe switches to Canon ?Change to
+ Profitable & money losing product lines
Date: Sat Aug 21 14:53:45 CDT 1999
From: "S. Sherman" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] trying out equip.
From: "David F. Stein" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Death Spiral Revisited
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999
From: "Jean-Claude Berger" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Zone blues
> And how can an employee live on 12,000 a year? Around here they'd make at
> least $14,000 a year and cost of living is much lower!
> It was a joke! :-)
> But I bet if someone gave a better price, they'd process
> a lot more than 128 rolls of film a day. Of course, here in one year I
> processed 230,000 rolls of film. No kidding! It goes without saying I had a
> machine.
Jean-Claude Berger ([email protected])
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "final warning" change to: 6006 Prism finders?
> both military and civilian uses. cutting a camera prism is peanuts compared to the
> other sofisticated optics fitted on soviet spy airships and satellites. there is a
> company selling flower vases made from defective lenses and prisms made for soviet
> satellites. they certainly made their own prisms.
>
> andre
>
> Bob Shell wrote:
>
>> I was told that the older Kiev prisms were actually cut and polished (the actual
>> prism, that is) in Jena until reunification drove the prices up too high.
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999
From: "Mike Durling" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Stock & Second Quarter financials
From: Joseph Chen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Death Spiral of Serious Amateur Photography
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000
From: Joseph Chen [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Death Spiral of Serious Amateur Photography
> From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:01:19 -0600 (CST)
> To: Joseph Chen [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Death Spiral of Serious Amateur Photography
>
> Hi - yes, you make some good points, however, I suspect the major
> benefits will be for low resolution instant family shots and web postings
> rather than serious amateur photographers; the quality issues are still
> fairly large unless you pay major bucks (like $55,000 for a med fmt
> dicomed hasselblad back), and I don't see a market for high dollar very
> high resolution CCDs needed to equal photoquality from film - megapixel
> for web stuff, yes, but tens of megapixels? is the mass market there?
>
> second, just 'cuz folks have digital cameras, esp. low end, may not
> warrant calling them "serious amateur" photographers; more likely, I see
> the point and shoot crowd going digital to save costs of developing and
> print out on epson color printers at home. But I doubt many of them will
> buy a lot of photobooks or try to improve the quality of their images etc.?
> We are selling 15+ million point and shoots, but the number of photo
> magazine subscribers is going down and so on - these folks aren't
> transitioning over into what I see as "serious" amateur photography, at
> least, not many of them to offset losses due to dropouts and die-offs ;-)
>
> grins bobm
From: Sue Me 2 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: The death spiral of serious amateur photography (please
post)
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Death Spiral Of Serious Photography
James Driscoll
Sorry For The Rambling!!!!
From: Michael Wood [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bronica User Survey Form
From: edromney [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Charlotte Camera Trade Fair Cancelled
From: Geoffrey Semorile [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Film Back Light Leaks
>I agree. It really infuriates me how we are being taken for a ride.
>Unfortunately we are fighting all the manufacturers since all of them seem
>to be in collusion.
>
>>Isn't it strange that you can buy a $100 Point-n-Shoot APS or 35mm camera
>>that has nearly automatic threading, DX coded film speed detection,
>>automatic advance and rewind, frame counter, ACCURATE frame spacing, NO
>>light leaks for the life of the camera - and oh yes, they throw in the body
>>and the lens for free.
>>
>>Or you can buy a $750 film magazine for your MF camera that has NONE of
>>those things!!! Now, if you want to reload quickly, you can buy several such
>>magazines and preload them before you start shooting.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Tom Clark
>
>Bob Peak, Jennifer Carpenter-Peak, Dakota & Bali (the Crested Chocolate Husky)
2308 Taraval St. S. F., CA 94116 USA
UNDERWATER PHOTO/VIDEO SALES-REPAIRS-RENTALS
(415) 242-1700 Fax (415) 242-1719
email: [email protected] web site: http://www.cameratech.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Will Hasselblad and Rollei be around in 5-7 years?
>Another post in this thread asks why photography is dying out. Robert
>Monaghan has an excellent article on this on his website, about the "death
>spiral" of serious photography. Essentially, photography is no longer
>something that can attract a hobbyist. Surely one of the many reasons for
>that, which RM goes into, must be the switch from the more tactile,
>romantic mechanical technology, to the polycarbonate video game technology
>of today's cameras. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not such newer
>cameras actually address vital photographic needs for the professional or
>not, one cannot deny that they just do not have the same physical appeal
>for the hobbyist.
--
Alvin C. Shih
http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~acs/
From: [email protected] (gary gaugler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Death Spiral
>[email protected] (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) wrote:
>
>> Though I do like the feel of fine mechanical cameras, I think Monaghan's
>> hypothesis is way off the mark.
>
>I see that what I wrote can be taken in a different way than what I
>intended: this is NOT Monaghan's hypothesis. My intended meaning was,
>Monaghan discusses the death spiral of serious photography, and I say,
>surely one of the reasons must be the change in technology. Monaghan's
>article is extensive and people should read it for themselves:
>
>www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/brondeath.html
From: [email protected] (lemonade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Death Spiral
> On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:15:32 -0400, [email protected] (lemonade) wrote:
>
> >www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/brondeath.html
> However, his point about the decline of 35mm is also augmented by
> others saying that there is an increase in MF and LF. I certainly
> Another factor to consider is how people spend their leisure time.
> Photographing the family used to be a big deal. Now, there are indeed
> P&S cameras that will do this. And of course, there are digital
> cameras and video recorders in abundance. how many new families have
> photo scrap books vs. rolls of video tape? My wife's 30 rolls of 8mm
> color movie film of her growing up years got transferred to S-VHS and
> the film is gone. Today, people work differently and play
From: John Stewart [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Death Spiral
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Death Spiral Update (long diatribe ;-)Death Spiral Update
re: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/brondeath.html Death Spiral of
Amat. Photogr.
From: [email protected] (Brian Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Death Spiral Update (long diatribe ;-)
From: [email protected] (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Death Spiral Update (long diatribe ;-)
From: [email protected] (Kent Whiting)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Death Spiral Update (long diatribe ;-)
> You could take you rwedding photos digitally and print them out on a high
> quality printer on site or in your van and have prints to give to the couple
> and their
> guests before everyone goes home. >>
>
> Based on what I've seen for the length of time it takes to print a good 8X10,
> you'd better have one hell of a long reception if you want to offer this
> service.
From: "S. Gareth Ingram" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Death Spiral Update (long diatribe ;-)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya America
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999
>gary gaugler wrote:
>
>> Without hard data, we are all speculating and thus, the whole train of
>> discussion really is rather useless. Maybe entertaining but useless
>> nonetheless.
>
>
>Entirely correct about hard data -- absent numbers, we need to look for
>other credible secondary sources. But beyond entertainment, I take an
>oblique comfort in Posner's comment, making it for me, rather useful. I
>regard Posner as a credible secondary source in this matter. Mamiya is
>basically health, if I understand his rather terse comment correctly. I
>don't use Mamiya, but without competition, no matter what I use will be
>built with less rigor. Strong Mamiya enhances the likelihood I'll have
>batter selection now and in the future.
>
>Len
From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Some food for thought
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000
Ralf
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
Ralf's Cologne Tram Page - www.netcologne.de/~nc-radermra
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Some food for thought
Date: 22 Apr 2000
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/photostats.html and
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/brondeath.html
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Some statistics
33.9 Million 35 cameras, -6% compared to 1998
766 thousand SLR, +3.6%
25 Thousand medium format, -9%
1.7 Million digital cameras, +41%
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Article
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Condenser vs. Diffusion Enlarger Heads
> From: Gene Johnson [email protected]
> Organization: @Home Network
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 07:12:59 -0800
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Condenser vs. Diffusion Enlarger Heads
>
> I'll make a prediction,
>
> Art and Photographic galleries will be exibiting real chemically made
> prints when we're all dead. I have nothing against digital anything.
> There is plenty of room, even need for it in the kind of world we live
> in. But I don't think the word obsolete applies to art. Just don't.
> Yeah I agree with you, we will soon see a time when 99% of all shots are
> dig.,but that last 1% will hang in there for quite a while.
>
> Gene Johnson
From Nikon Fact Book at
[Ed. note: was at http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2000/00fb_e04.pdf
(now link checker reports not found (Error 404) as of 2/2003)]
Nikon and Japanese MFGer Sales:
fiscal year SLR compact lenses digital
1996/3 620 1,600 740 -
1997/3 800 1,680 890 -
1998/3 850 1,790 1,000 30
1999/3 940 1,630 970 100
2000/3 890 1,710 980 410
SLR Cameras:
year world-wide nikon% Value (Yen) Nik%
1995 3,390 18.5% #84.5B 25.2%
1996 3,530 20.0% #91.1B 27.9%
1997 4,100 21.9% #107.1B 32.4%
1998 4,290 20.5% #104.2B 29.9%
1999 4,360 20.9% #108.8B 29.3%
(values in billions of yen, worldwide units
shipped in thousands of units for SLRs)
Compact Cameras:
year worldwide nikon% value (yen) nikon%
1995 26,130 6.3 206.1 5.6
1996 25,380 5.0 197.4 4.3
1997 32,510 5.5 263.5 4.3
1998 31,650 5.1 273.6 4.4
1999 29,460 6.1 243.8 5.1
Digital Cameras:
year worldwide nikon% value (yen) nikon%
1997 2,120 1.6 80.3 1.7
1998 3,170 3.2 143.4 4.1
1999 5,090 6.4 227.9 8.9
2000* 9,100 - 400
2001* 12,000 - 500
(*=forecast)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001
From: mwalker [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: death spiral photography
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: death of local stores (Ebay to blame?) Re: Local store prices
> While I can't speak to the demise of the retailers I can speak to the camera
> repair business.
> There was a time when camera repair shops flourished and camera sales were
> high..
> And yes many repair shops went out of business because they did a poor job
> servicing equipment. A few more closed rather than spend thousands on
> retraining & test equipment. Many of the "new" techs do not have the
> training to repair the older cameras.
> There are the shops who can still service the "older" cameras but the labor
> rate is high and fewer people are willing to spend $90.00 to have an $80 -
> $125.00 camera repaired.
> I have no doubt that eBay is having an effect on the photo market but so is
> digital cameras, computers and other leisure time activities.
> Mike
>
> "Robert Monaghan" [email protected] wrote in message
> > we seem to be losing a number of our local stores and some mail order
> > dealers too, mainly the "better" ones by my reckoning. Examples include
> > KEH outlet store, Doc Millers, and so on in Dallas, and recently Del's and
> > several others in mail order or bankruptcies. The more they had used gear
> > or better repair services, the more they seem to be on the endangered
> > list?
> >
> > One of our other top camera store (e.g., our local Leica dealer) has
> > telescopes, a minilab, huge area dedicated to selling picture frames, but
> > no medium format cameras at all. Weird or saavy? Our biggest commercial
> > pro photo shop has less used gear on sale than many of us have in our
> > closets (ahem) ;-) Walls of darkroom stuff and papers, nice set of books
> > for sale, but less hardware and more accessories and albums and other high
> > profit markup items. Again, smart retailing, but leaves me asking -
> > Where's the beef? ;-)
> >
> > my guess is that EBAY has so altered the landscape that the higher profits
> > from buying a camera at 30-50% of selling price and reselling have been
> > lost to direct seller to buyer sales on ebay etc. online, and the modest
> > profits on new camera bodies and lenses competing with mail order aren't
> > enough to keep retail stores alive, plus the rapid obsolescence costs are
> > hurting anyone with inventory, which is what many of us look for in a
> > "good" camera store? With less used gear coming in, the profits from
> > selling a camera body or lens (5% on up) is not enough, and only the
> > accessories are keeping the stores alive, unless they also do minilab
> > etc.?
> >
> > Correspondingly, there seem to be fewer dealers and fewer local camera
> > shows. Again, is it going to online EBAY buyers?
> >
> > bobm
> > --
> > * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 [email protected]
From: [email protected] (Douglas Fejer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: death of local stores (Ebay to blame?) Re: Local store prices
From: "Glen Barrington" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: death of local stores (Ebay to blame?) Re: Local store prices
From: Skip [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: death of local stores (Ebay to blame?) Re: Local store prices
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
From: "Tom Bloomer" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: dropping prices of med fmt gear.. Re: ATTN: R MONAGHAN
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001
Yes, you are correct. I am thinking like an advanced amateur. In a studio
environment, production work flow is the most important factor. In fact the
last company that I worked for is now in the process of converting their
studio to a complete digital work flow. They will spend about $0.5Million
to accomplish the effort. I am a network architect by trade, and I worked
as a technical advisor to the photo department when they were planning the
conversion.
They are dumping their film processor, Sinar 4x5 and 8x10 large format
systems and their Hasselblads to move in to a complete digital work flow.
They should be totally digital in about 2 or 3 more years . . . making the
entire transition over a period of about 6 years. They will likely be
restaffing as well because it is easier to hire new "digital photographers"
than it is to retrain their existing staff. To their advantage is the fact
that they will significantly reduce their time to market for their catalogs
and flyers.
They have already invested $400,000 in a "digital asset management system" -
a server farm with dedicated terabyte disk and tape robot storage capacity
and an on-line digital image catalog and work flow tracking system. Once
they get there they will have invested almost $1million. In addition they
already employ a full time staff of IT professionals like me to keep their
LAN, WAN, PCs, mainframe and associated systems up and running. They have
significantly added to their IT expertise requirements and increased their
support and maintenance spending for proprietary software designed to
integrate manage the new technology.
How many studios can afford to make that kind of investment? Even if the
cost comes down by an order of magnitude? There is a lot more complexity to
a total digital photo environment than one sees at first glance. The
photographer has to learn about the technical aspects of networking,
storage, digital photo editing and retouching, or one has to hire that
expertise and rely on a vendor to deliver results.
Working as a network architect and systems integrator, I have seen the pain
first hand. For the big ad-agencies and high production studios, the time
savings in the work flow may justify the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). But
what about the mom & pop studios? What about the freelancer? The learning
curve is very steep and the technology to compete with film is very
expensive. It is less expensive to buy a high end CCD scanner like the
Imacon or the Nikon 8000 then it is to purchase a digital camera system to
replace your film technology investment. How many small studios and
independent photographers will choose to take this route first?
Bottom line, do you really think film will disappear in 5 years?
--
Tom Bloomer
Hartly, DE
"radiojohn" [email protected]> wrote
> 16MP does not even begin to capture the amount of detail in medium format
> transparency film. It may match or surpass 35mm, but to think that it will
> match medium format is ridicules. What the digital industry is hoping is
> that we drop our standards to accommodate their technology before they
> approach the capability of film.
But you are forgetting that many of the images shot with these "new" digital
cameras are ending up as very small images in catalogs and folders.
The practical consideration is that the current backs and cameras are
getting the job done faster and cheaper. This has nothing to do with fine
art, lines per millimeter, film area, etc.
Obviously the current gear is not designed for the big wedding portrait.
But for ever one of those, there are thousands of small images shot for some
Wal-Mart throwaway insert.
In short, you are thinking like an advanced amateur, whose needs are totally
apart from many pro needs.
John
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: dropping prices of med fmt gear.. Re: ATTN: R MONAGHAN
From: "radiojohn" [email protected]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001
There are special LF lenses already redesigned for digital use only.
Olympus is steadfast in their claim that 35mm lenses do not produce as good
a result as lenses made for the smaller chip size and sensor characterisitcs
of CCS and CMOS chips.
By the time a digital camera can be affordably made that accepts 35mm
lenses, not enough people will want one. It's a bit like trying to get up
interest in an Exacta adapter for a Canon EOS.
The same will be true with MF. Right now most of the stuff is overpriced
and somewhat pathetic. But it is not going to adapt to current MF hardware,
it is going to (eventually) phase it out and replace it.
As the number of film users (especially MF and large format) decrease, labs
will shut down the film side and chemistry and film will become too
expensive. Already it is very hard to have a custom print made from a 6x9
negative because not enough people use that format. The same trend will
continue.
Like it or not, it's happening. Maybe 10 years out, but it's happening.
John
> Robert Monaghan wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > incidentally, there are lots of reasons why current medium format lenses
> > for film are a BAD MATCH to digital chips of 16 MP, so while backs will be
> > available and cheap, the competing digital cameras will probably be so
> > small and have better matched optics for much less than any pro med fmt
> > rig. So I wouldn't plan on using any current film oriented optics on a
> > future 16 MP or denser digital camera. In any case, the lack of electronic
> > lens databus lines will compromise many potential features in the future.
> >
> > just some more thoughts ;-)
> >
>
> Bob;
>
> You have perked up my interest. So before I drop $30K into a 'blad,
> lenses, and a Kodak 16MP back... Would you please elaborate on your
> comments above.
>
> TIA
> Charles
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: dropping prices of med fmt gear.. Re: ATTN: R MONAGHAN
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001
Were you really puzzled about why Kodak, Agfa, et al are so focused on
digital? It's because the dollars compared to traditional photography are
huge, they're gigantic, there's no comparison between the two. People
typically buy maybe two or three good cameras in their life time. Darkroom
equipment lasts forever, lenses last forever. Unless it breaks down, with
film based equipment you buy good quality and it lasts a life time. Compare
that to digital - new computer every couple years, new monitor every couple
years, update Photoshop every couple years, new printer every couple years,
new camera every couple years, the list goes on and on. And the cost is
thousands of dollars more than traditional stuff cost, plus you need more of
it. I only dabble in digital but I've probably spent about $5,000 on the
most basic hardware and software in the last three or so years and if I get
serious about it I'll spend much more than that and, more importantly, I'll
have to do it over and over again every few years.
So the photography industry, which used to be stuck with making this
equipment that didn't cost much (compared to digital) and was so good that
people didn't need to replace it very often, has all of a sudden hit the
jackpot with digital. At last, something that becomes obsolete every few
years and that costs a fortune to replace. That's the reason, and it's the
only reason, why companies like Kodak and Agfa are trying to get out of
traditional photography equipment and into digital as fast as they can and
it's why film will some day become a niche item.
"Huib Smeets" [email protected]> wrote
> Hi,
>
> Ah! I always was puzzled about why companies like Kodak and Agfa are
> so focused on digital: I always thougth: if they sell one, good
> digicam to the consumer which will last him for(almost)ever and
> knowing less images beeing printed and more beeing viewed at by using
> a monitor, so no need for consumables like paper and film, where's the
> profit for those companies?? how can they sustain their turnover,
> there has to be a replacement for film and paper sales (the
> consumables).
>
> But reading about disposables, I now understand what the bussiness
> model will be like: the inkjetprinter/polaroid business model, cheap
> camera's whithout an image sensor and relative (in)expensive
> consumables. Profit will be made on the consumables, the hardware
> probably given away at almost no costs.
>
> To take pictures you have to buy a digital film cartridge, a sensor
> with enough integrated write-once storage integrated into it for a
> number of X exposures. It will be sold to us as: very convenient as
> you do not need expensive storagecards, no computer and no printer for
> taking a picture, it will be small enough to carry dozens around, it
> is inexpensive enough to drop it of at a lab to be processed (they
> need a living too). The writeonce memory will be sold as: no more data
> loss due to human error!. Other benefit: Investment protection: when
> higher resolutions or higher speeds get available: no need to buy a
> new camerabody, just buy the newer cartridge! If one or more
> sensorpixels are defect, no need to for costly repairs on the body,
> just interpolate the missing data and load a new cartridge.
>
> It will be very appealing to "Joe/Jane Sixpack" as it is so familiar
> to what he/she is used to now: no mind-boggling computer stuff, just
> brain-dead load, shoot and get it processed routine.
>
> History repeats itself!
>
> Huib.
>
> Ps. I know we are getting completely off-topic!
>
>
>
> [email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote
>
> >
> > re: digital
> >
> > the president of national semiconductor, who make the Foveon 16 megapixel
> > chips, says they " " expect to make DISPOSABLE 16 MP cameras in the
> > midterm (ie, ~ 3 to 5 years). Buying a $20,000 Leaf or other digital back
> > for medium format now makes sense if your volume will pay for it in more
> > sales (faster turnaround to demanding clients) or materials costs, within
> > the next year or so, but that's maybe 1% of photographers out there
> > (mostly catalog types etc.). If you really want to see some serious gear
> > depreciation, tune in when the $100 16 megapixel disposable cameras come
> > out and pulverize the digital backs (4 MP) on hassy etc. ;-) ;-)
> >
> > incidentally, there are lots of reasons why current medium format lenses
> > for film are a BAD MATCH to digital chips of 16 MP, so while backs will be
> > available and cheap, the competing digital cameras will probably be so
> > small and have better matched optics for much less than any pro med fmt
> > rig. So I wouldn't plan on using any current film oriented optics on a
> > future 16 MP or denser digital camera. In any case, the lack of electronic
> > lens databus lines will compromise many potential features in the future.
> >
> > just some more thoughts ;-)
> >
> > grins bobm
>
From: Joe Wilensky [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: A prediction on the decline of 35mm -- circa 1972!
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
Has anyone ever read "Glass, Brass & Chrome: The American 35mm Miniature
Camera" by Kalton C. Lahue and Joseph A. Bailey? I had read it years
ago, and recently got a copy on eBay.
It lovingly and technically traces the American 35mm camera industry,
framing it in perspective with Leica and Contax, telling the story of
Argus, Univex, Perfex, Kodak, and more, and closing with what they were
sure was the imminent demise of the 35mm format as Kodak Instamatic
sales skyrocketed across the globe. The copyright date? 1972, by the
University of Oklahoma Press.
Here's what their perspective was as they put this book together in the
late '60s and early '70s:
Engineering design of the Kodak Instamatic, under the name Project 13,
was completed in 1961, with production beginning in 1962 and sales
beginning in February 1963. It was probably Kodak's best-kept secret of
the century; few even within Kodak were aware of its existence.
The Kodak Instamatic, while not a genuine scientific or technological
breakthrough, was a masterful example of engineering ingenuity and
packaging (even the cheapest Instamatic camera was fitted with an f/3.5
plastic lens, which was physically and permanently stopped down to f/11
or f/16 for better definition, a practice the Ansco Memo had used in the
'30s.
The cartridge, known briefly as the Kodapak, was made of a special
polystyrene stable enough to hold the film flat (or reasonably so, I
guess), but it was also inexpensive enough for mass production.
Designers decided on a square format to utilize the full covering power
of a lens with a short focal length, which allowed the camera to be
slimmer wtihout the need for a collapsible front.
Within the first two years of the Instamatic's introduction, more than
7.5 million cameras were sold (in seven models) -- almost half of which
were sold overseas.
Surveys at the time showed that while owners of other cameras used an
average of four rolls a year, Instamatic users used eight rolls. Kodak
sold 50 million cartridges of film in the first 21 months after the
format's introduction -- which, of course, was the primary goal it set
to achieve: increased film sales.
The introduction of the Kodak 126 Instamatic cartridge was devastating
to the Japanese photographic industry, which only survived by forming a
cartel to restrict production during 1965-66.
The high-end Kodak Instamatic X-90, featuring an Ektar f/2.8 lens and
some sort of exposure computer that allowed for nearly program exposure,
alone outsold all the rest of the world's "quality rangefinders"
combined.
Kodak's Instamatic Reflex, which was manufactured in Germany by Kodak
A.G., replaced the famed Retina line.
No American manufacturer produced a camera using 35mm film at the time.
Within four years after its introduction, the Instamatic had cut total
35mm sales nearly in half, from 600,000 to 325,000. "And while 1971
sales figures showed the 35mm camera holding its own, it stands no
chance of ever catching up to its brother with the plastic cartridge,"
the authors boldly stated. "The 35mm cameras once manufactured in
America died and are now half-forgotten, but the rectangular negative
took on new life in a square shape and is firmly established today as
the format of the future."
Without automation, acrylic-lens technology, and Yankee ingenuity, there
would probably be no American camera industry today, the authors said.
Any comments? Was the film flatness issue what kept Instamatic film from
taking its place as the world's preferred format? Was it the
introduction of autofocus point-and-shoot 35mm cameras in the late '70s?
And ... is there anything we can learn from this today?
Joe
From: Gannet [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: A prediction on the decline of 35mm -- circa 1972!
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
Joe Wilensky [email protected]> wrote:
>Any comments? Was the film flatness issue what kept Instamatic film from
>taking its place as the world's preferred format? Was it the
>introduction of autofocus point-and-shoot 35mm cameras in the late '70s?
Heh! Fascinating, thanks for posting that!
Film flatness was never the issue for any but advanced amateurs - and
Kodak pretty much ignores them in their marketing plans. Let's face
it, if you're shooting with a plastic-lens Instamatic permanently set
on f11...what's film flatness? :)
IMO, the real issue, as another poster noted, was that Kodak was
stupid and greedy. As they are today.
Other manufacturers, especially the Japanese, resisted adopting 126
because they didn't want to pay royalties to Kodak. Kodak lost
interest in 126 when the patents expired and they attempted to switch
everyone to 110, and then discfilm, and most lately APS. Each
iteration of this strategy was less successful than the last in terms
of overall market penetration and, perhaps more importantly, staying
power.
This shows a basic difference in business philosophy. Kodak only
really gets excited about something when they can create a monopoly
and milk it. The notion of competing as equals on the basis of
quality and value doesn't enter their minds.
Kodak also has complete contempt for their customers. They think that
quality doesn't matter, that the "average consumer" they target can't
tell the difference between good, mediocre and awful quality. Hence,
whatever Kodak can deliver that is "good enough" and has the lowest
product cost is what they are going to release.
Enough Kodak-ranting, back to the P&S 35 kills 126 issue (which I
think is exactly what happened): this relates back to corporate
culture. Kodak always sees themselves as a film company. They
haven't been a camera company in a long, long time and don't want to
be. The only reason they ever sell cameras at all is to sell film.
As such, Kodak doesn't want to spend R&D money on cameras (yes, there
are exceptions re: digital, etc., but they remain exceptions). Add in
Kodak's "good enough" notions and, heck, Instamatics are "good
enough", right? Camera R&D would be a waste of money.
The Japanese camera companies, OTOH ( with the exception of Fuji and
Konica), are strictly hardware companies. Hardware companies with an
aversion to paying anyone royalties on anything.
Put these two things together and what you get is a situation where
the Japanese camera companies were the only ones funding R&D and
moving cameras into the modern age, and they weren't inclined to do
that on the 126 platform.
The ostensible consumer problem that 126 solved was difficulty with
film loading. And indeed, many 35mm cameras of the 50s and 60s had
film loading that was, um, "awkward". But for Kodak, the -real-
"problem" that 126 solved was to get people locked into Kodak's
revenue stream, either directly through buying Kodak film, or
indirectly through royalties.
But from the camera companies' point of view, it was the former
problem that was of interest. And they solved that, not by
redesigning the film cartridge, but by redesigning the camera. Today,
we usually think of the advent of AE, and later AF, as the hallmarks
of the point & shoot. But I would argue that the crucial innovation
was the "quick loading" (to borrow one companies' term) systems that
made it easy for even Aunt Minnie to load a 35mm camera. From the
consumer's point of view, there went 126's advantage, right out the
window.
Upshot, the only companies that were bringing quality AE and AF to the
table, were also doing this via quick-load 35 cameras. Consumers
wanted the higher quality these cameras offered (note, they were no
EASIER to use than an Instamatic) and moved to them in droves. Kodak
could take a note here. People can and will pay more for better
quality, and they know it when they see it. But you have to show it to
them.
You could argue that this whole episode was the seminal event of the
photo market of the late 20th century. Kodak bet that consumers would
accept mediocre quality as long as it was easy to use and had a low
cost of entry. Japan bet that consumers would pay a lot more for
higher quality as long as it was easy to use. Although the whole
thing is hardly a "decided issue", over time, Kodak has lost share and
Japan has gained it.
>From a corporate culture point of view, Japan tends to figure out how
to do quality first, and then figure out how to do it at a price the
market will bear. They trust that quality will be its own reward in
terms of customer satisfaction and hence sales. Kodak (and American
companies in general) tend to look at what can be produced most
cheaply first, and then figure out how much additional money has to be
put in to get it to a quality level that the consumer (at least those
in focus groups) considers "acceptable". The fallacy in the American
approach is that long-term customer satisfaction is not the same thing
as short-term satisfaction, and it is long-term satisfaction that
drives repeat business. American companies target only the former and
when they lose share over time, they wonder why. People wise up, is
why.
>And ... is there anything we can learn from this today?
Hmmm, not sure. Perhaps that Kodak apparently hasn't learned much? :)
Also, referring back to the book author's statements, that future
market or technological trends that seem "inevitable" are rarely so.
:)
I do think the overall lesson is that you can generate early sales
with low price and convenience, but that over time, people WILL seek
out higher quality, the best that they can find at the price they care
to pay. And hence, that producers who strive to produce the highest
quality for the money spent will tend to prosper over time.
My nickel's worth.
Gannet
St. Petersburg, Florida USA
[email protected]