And this is true. And mainly this is because of what an earlier poster mentioned about high-tech marketing and programmed consumers. Digital photography plays right into it. For the entire century of the 1900's, camera manufacturers could make whatever camera they wanted, with whatever feature they liked. But the camera in the end was only a holder for somebody else's film. The camera manufacturer's didn't have control of the image and they didn't get recurring revenue. So Nikon (for example) sells a multi-hundred dollar camera and it's Kodak's film that the consumer ultimately uses to judge the product. Not to mention that recurring revenue stream that Kodak/Fuji/Ilford enjoys from that camera for as long as the shutter is clicking.
So the camera manufacturers wanted Kodak out of their shorts. Kodachrome is Kodachrome no matter whose camera it's in. But with DIGITAL, the manufacturer can now credibly claim there is some great difference between their camera and the next guy's due to the wonderful, special sensor only they have.
So people bought digital cameras. But, after the newness wears off they stop using that camera. Now Nikon has to come up with something new to create interest again, so they add mega-pixels and features. Now instead of the 10 MP camera, you've got to have the 18 MP camera. Does if make a difference? Not really, but like horsepower or watts or whatever, more is more so it's better. You can create a great photo with a Hasselblad, a digital P&S or an Instamatic. The photographer makes the photograph what it is, not the camera.
But how is Nikon and Canon and Pentax and so on really doing financially today? Probably not much better than they ever were and maybe not even as good, IDK. But I know this: they found out the same thing Kodak learned a hundred years ago. People use the camera a whole lot while it is new and then they lose interest. Kodak solved the problem by coming out with a new format every so often. The camera became new again because it was easier to load or it fit in your purse and Kodak sold more film with Fuji riding the wave. This means huge R&D budgets to keep developing the next great thing. Kodak had those budgets for years, but that was OK because the payoff was huge. Now the payoff isn't so huge but it's still there and that will keep someone in the business for a long time. But Nikon and Canon have to keep that R&D going and it's got to have to payoff in the end.
They they came out with cameras in iPhones and Nikon takes it in the teeth. They never figured on that! It isn't just Kodak in their shorts anymore, now you can add Apple and Motorola and whoever else. There's a whole lot more companies that make electronics than ever made that film.
And now guess what happens? Somebody came out with a new kind of analog camera and it's something new and people like it and use it - which is good for us.
My end analysis? If Nikon and Canon made film, film would still be king.
Last edited by a moderator:
