Kodak plans a new FILM camera

Steam Power

A
Steam Power

  • 2
  • 0
  • 32
Super Slide

A
Super Slide

  • 4
  • 4
  • 121
Double Casino

A
Double Casino

  • 1
  • 0
  • 76
Holy Pool

A
Holy Pool

  • 2
  • 2
  • 119
Ugliness

Ugliness

  • 1
  • 3
  • 159

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,354
Messages
2,757,846
Members
99,466
Latest member
SeanC
Recent bookmarks
0

Moopheus

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
1,219
Location
Cambridge MA
Format
Medium Format

I do remember Wordstar. I was still using CP/M into the early 90s. Somewhere around here I have a box of floppies I'll probably never be able to read again.

One has to wonder if the market for new film cameras will actually increase again once the existing supply of used gear starts to fade away. It might be interesting to try to get a handle on how large that market actually is--the number of film cameras sold in a year by ebay, craigslist, keh, etc. It's probably still small compared to digital, but would it be enough to sustain new production if it weren't there?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jeff Kubach

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond VA.
Format
Multi Format
Interesting news from Kodak. I don't know if it is a decent camera or not. One small ray of hope against the tidal wave of d'''tal cameras.
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,034
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
What a waste. Vivitar cameras are disgusting pieces of trash. It is no ray of hope when a crappy camera is rebranded. They work, but their crumminess is less than ideal for a school environment. Unfortunately, public schools are very limited as to what they can buy. They are usually forced to buy new products only. This limits their choices to, oh...about three cameras; all of them pretty bad. The Nikon FM10 is the best of the bunch, and it isn't even that great.

The reason the Vivitars are selling at all is because so many schools already have Pentax K lenses from their days of using K-1000s.
 

Vonder

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
1,237
Location
Foo
Format
35mm
Nah

I do remember Wordstar. I was still using CP/M into the early 90s. Somewhere around here I have a box of floppies I'll probably never be able to read again.

One has to wonder if the market for new film cameras will actually increase again once the existing supply of used gear starts to fade away. It might be interesting to try to get a handle on how large that market actually is--the number of film cameras sold in a year by ebay, craigslist, keh, etc. It's probably still small compared to digital, but would it be enough to sustain new production if it weren't there?

What's "hot" on eBay today are the classics or the cameras you drooled over in Modern Photography but were too poor to buy. What SLRs are left, selling new, nowadays, are the high-end and low-end cameras. The Canon 1V HS is still made (or they still sell existing stock) as is the Rebel K2, a cheapo plastic body. There are a two manual-focus 35mm cameras made, namely the Nikon FM-10 and the Vivitar 3800n.

While the EOS 1V HS might be a classic, none of the others are. There won't be much demand for them even as brand new cameras UNTIL the classic ones are all gone from eBay. And then who knows... if the only 35mm SLR made was that Vivitar, and you had no other 35mm camera option, would you buy one? Or just give in and get a DSLR?
 

Moopheus

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
1,219
Location
Cambridge MA
Format
Medium Format
What's "hot" on eBay today are the classics or the cameras you drooled over in Modern Photography but were too poor to buy.

Admittedly that describes some of the stuff I've bought recently. Looking through the "completed" listings in the film camera category on ebay, I would estimate, very very roughly (very), that somewhere around five or six thousand film cameras are sold per month on the auction site. (leaving out parts, lenses, and so on). Of all types. If ebay were, say, a third of the used camera market (just a wild guess), that would imply a total market of 150-200,000 cameras a year. Also no way to know if the buyers are new or returning to film, or adding to collections, or whatever. It's surely not a "growth" market; it's mostly old stuff getting older.

These numbers don't suggest to me that film is ever going to be more than a dedicated niche market for the near future, at least. Possibly a large enough market to sustain commercial support for some products.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,844
Format
Hybrid
Does anybody know how long digital images last for once they are out of the camera i.e. onto a CD or stored on electronic drives? One theory has it about 7 years? I've got Kodachrome 64 and 200 slides in perfect condition shot in the mid-1970s. Just wondering if digital can match that... :D

most hobbiest photographers who do not process film themselves
rely on labs to process and print their film. most labs do not do
archival processing, their prints will not last very long anyways.
digital images will last a very long time if they are cared for, just like (archival) film based images.

historic agencies throughout the usa are accepting digital files and
ink jet prints for their submissions these days... i don't think
they would fill their archives with things that won't last beyond 7 years,
if the images are being generated for "historic purposes".
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,463
Location
.
Format
Digital
most hobbiest photographers who do not process film themselves
rely on labs to process and print their film. most labs do not do
archival processing, their prints will not last very long anyways.
digital images will last a very long time if they are cared for, just like (archival) film based images.

historic agencies throughout the usa are accepting digital files and
ink jet prints for their submissions these days... i don't think
they would fill their archives with things that won't last beyond 7 years,
if the images are being generated for "historic purposes".

I would be very circumspect of any "historic agency" accepting inkjet prints for submissions. I assume they would then promptly electronically capture such prints to their own archival standards. Compared to the Cibachrome process (which incidentally has been around since 1961 and has a claimed life of several hundred years when framed to museum-grade conservation standards), an inkjet print, or even an ultrachrome K3 print, will not have the staying power over time. I am still researching the life of digital files but I'm sure I've heard a 7 year lifespan mentioned some where in context with environmental magnetism being a factor for digital file storage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,844
Format
Hybrid
I would be very circumspect of any "historic agency" accepting inkjet prints for submissions. I assume they would then promptly electronically capture such prints to their own archival standards. Compared to the Cibachrome process (which incidentally has been around since 1961 and has a claimed life of several hundred years when framed to museum-grade conservation standards), an inkjet print, or even an ultrachrome K3 print, will not have the staying power over time. I am still researching the life of digital files but I'm sure I've heard a 7 year lifespan mentioned some where in context with environmental magnetism being a factor for digital file storage.

be as cirrcumspect as you wish :wink:
http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/digital-photo-records.html

the us government is pushing the digital agenda for historical agencies,
since people who shoot traditionally are few and far between in the commerical world,
and because most professional labs do not process and print archivally
and on fiber paper, or they charge "boutique lab" prices that most freelance contractors
on a shoe string budget cannot afford.

very few labs actually process
film and make prints archivally, without hardener ...
most of the labs i know of in my region all
say "archival" even when they aren't).

once submitted, they do not re-capture and re-print as you suggest,
but send to the state archivist for cataloging. there is not a big budget for
anything like that ...
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
907
Location
Nanaimo, Bri
Format
35mm
You wouldn't say that as loudly if you were one of the retirees Kodak recently threw under the bus.

I think they would; if Kodak's business is good so are their benefits, if business suffers their benefits suffer (what's happening). If Kodak does not "live long" and goes under there won't be any retirement or pension packages to reduce.

I'm more than happy to support the company by buying the Kodak products that I like. No matter which way you look at it a suffering Kodak doesn't do any good for anyone, not even their competitors in the grand scheme of things.

Kodak, may you live long, and prosper! (Preferably through sales of analogue materials.)
 

nsouto

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
627
Location
Sydney Australia
Format
Multi Format
And then who knows... if the only 35mm SLR made was that Vivitar, and you had no other 35mm camera option, would you buy one? Or just give in and get a DSLR?

I'd buy one of the many rangefinders still around.
Matter of fact, recently did: a ZM...
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,470
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
[. The Canon 1V HS is still made (or they still sell existing stock) as is the Rebel K2, a cheapo plastic body. There are a two manual-focus 35mm cameras made, namely the Nikon FM-10 and the Vivitar 3800n.

The Rebel is no longer being made, but Nikon is still making the F6.

While the EOS 1V HS might be a classic, none of the others are. There won't be much demand for them even as brand new cameras UNTIL the classic ones are all gone from eBay. And then who knows... if the only 35mm SLR made was that Vivitar, and you had no other 35mm camera option, would you buy one? Or just give in and get a DSLR?[/QUOTE]

35mm is the endangered format, once motion picture production goes digital color film production will no longer be profitable. Ferrina or Lucky might make a go of it out of single use cameras. The used 35mm market can only last so long, based just my percpetion without any real numbers, the listing on ebay seems gets shorter and shorter, and without a source of new 35mm cameras the market for film will dry up. I have not see any recent mention of the proposed Kodak SLR in the press or an updated press release, but I hope it is still coming, even if it is just a rebranded vivtar 3800.
 

Frank Szabo

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
311
Location
Broken Arrow
Format
8x10 Format
I think they would; if Kodak's business is good so are their benefits, if business suffers their benefits suffer (what's happening). If Kodak does not "live long" and goes under there won't be any retirement or pension packages to reduce.

I'm more than happy to support the company by buying the Kodak products that I like. No matter which way you look at it a suffering Kodak doesn't do any good for anyone, not even their competitors in the grand scheme of things.

Kodak, may you live long, and prosper! (Preferably through sales of analogue materials.)

Justin, if you and the Photo Engineer are happy with them, so be it.

Personally, I feel the terms one retired under should be honored and not rescinded in order to secure outlandish pay, special awards and bonuses for any corporation's CEO and minions and I refuse to support these actions by my patronage or use of their products.

It's a thing called "principals".
 

PhotoJim

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
2,316
Location
Regina, SK, CA
Format
35mm

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,021
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Back in 2005, when Ilford had its difficulties and laid off so many, did you get angry at Ilford. Last year, when Ilford bought Kentmere and laid off some Kentmere employees, where was your complaint and where were the suggestions about boycotting Ilford products?

In fact, I buy Kodak and Ilford products and think both companies are doing the best they can with a rapidly shrinking market. Boycotting anyones products in this hard time is suicide for the ardent analog photographer.

PE
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,470
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Back in 2005, when Ilford had its difficulties and laid off so many, did you get angry at Ilford. Last year, when Ilford bought Kentmere and laid off some Kentmere employees, where was your complaint and where were the suggestions about boycotting Ilford products?

In fact, I buy Kodak and Ilford products and think both companies are doing the best they can with a rapidly shrinking market. Boycotting anyones products in this hard time is suicide for the ardent analog photographer.

PE

For as long as I can recall and for reasons that have always excaped me Kodak has been a target, "the great yellow father" evil father at that. Compared to other large film and paper makers that have long gone the way of the dodo or just got out of the market such as GAF and Dupont, Kodak has taken a lot of grief just for surviving. Some people blamed Kodak for unfair business practices for the demise of GAF, the fact of the matter is that GAF could not invest to keep up with Kodak and made inferior products, and Dupont had the resources just chose not to. Boycotting Kodak is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I spent the last 2 or 3 years trying eastern european films and came back to Kodak because the QC just is not to par with Kodak. I do buy Edwal and Ilford products, but I can count only 1 time in the last 40 years that I had problem with any Kodak product, a few rolls of Tmax 400 with a little dust in the emulsion and I would still be buying Kodak paper if it was being made.
 

fotch

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
4,774
Location
SE WI- USA
Format
Multi Format
I wonder if it has something to do with cost. Kodak makes the best products and has spent the most on development. They also treated their employees better than average or at least, that is my impression as a non-Kodak worker. They have a high overhead.

I am always amazed at the quest to buy cheap film to put in these expensive cameras that photographers will argue endlessly who makes the best lens, body, shutter, etc. Quite often they find that the film has all kinds of defects and write it off as the problem as if they are paid to experiment rather than stating they are boycotting the maker.

When I grab my camera, whether it is for profit or for fun, I want to have as little a problem as possible with the materials or the equipment that I can. I have enough problems making my own mistakes due to ignorance, laziness, without having problems with the process materials. That said, sure, I like to save a buck or two. Not at the sacrifice of quality.

For some, the fun they get may be in the experimenting with different films, papers, chemicals, cameras, and so forth. More power to them. Whatever makes you happy? But why then beat up on what has been (and still is?) the most successful manufacture photo company in the world.

So, to get back to the point I am trying to make, folks sometimes seem to get mad at Kodak for trying to remain profitable while making quality products rather than dealing with the fact that they need to either make more money or spend it more wisely and accept the fact, generally, you get what you paid for.

For myself, I am going back to reloading film and also hunting down reliable sellers who also offer more competitive prices, example B&H, Freestyle, and others.

IMHO
Jim
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,034
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
They are only such a big target nowadays because we loved them so damned much in their heyday. They are just a weak shadow of their former selves.

Even though I personally missed some of their legendary products, so don't even know what I am missing, even in the past few years they have really thrown several BIG wrenches into my plans. Every single product I absolutely loved from them was just got rid of, as if they had been reading my mind. 320T, 160T, Portra 100T, Ultra Endura, and Supra Endura, EIR, and HIE, most notably. Not to mention the huge variety of transparency films that I never took advantage of, and which is now totally gone except for those materials that pretty much correspond with the Fuji offerings.

Some people say the industry forces this. I say we are obsessed with money and conformity. I think they just aren't trying hard enough, and have no interest whatsoever in providing a full set of interesting tools to us, on a personal level. To be respected, you have to ignore the market and the industry to a certain and just do what you think is right. It is obvious to me that no one at Kodak has much personal interest in doing anything except treading water.

I would rather have a business try really hard to provide us all with the things we love them for and go under than to warp themselves with the sole purpose of staying alive. They don't seem like a business with a concept and a philosophy. They seem like stooges.

The argument against is simply: "New T-Max", and "they are still doing research". Big effing deal. Have they once released a statement saying how devoted they are to the art of film photography? In recent years, have they done anything to promote film photography and try to keep it alive in schools? Have they once made a major monetary gamble or sacrifice to simply do the right thing for us? They will abandon film as readily as is economically feasible.

So, it's not business. It's personal.

And FWIW, I still buy their color paper and 400-speed color 4x5 and 8x10 film. If Fuji offered products that were comparable, I would buy them, however. I generally have shot Fuji for color neg., but they don't have 400-speed color sheet film, and their enlarging paper isn't as nice, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Michael W

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,594
Location
Sydney
Format
Multi Format
I would rather have a business try really hard to provide us all with the things we love them for and go under than to warp themselves with the sole purpose of staying alive.
You're obviously not a shareholder.
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,034
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
You're obviously not a shareholder.

...nor do I believe in the concept of them. This is the kind of crap you get with corporations. No one person has any accountability for anything, and everyone is a slave to the investors, not to the customers. It is remarkable the way decision are made in corporations. It is a wonder they are not all bankrupt already. All I want is a company that resembles a person in some way, shape, or form, not some nebulous blob.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WarEaglemtn

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
461
Format
Multi Format
How nice. Buy a Kodak film camera and film and when it comes time to print the B&W work you can get the paper somewhere else.

Does management in Kodak know anything about supporting those who they sell these things to?

Or will this be another 'seemed like a good idea at the time' cry in a few years when they quit once again on a market segment they pushed to open?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,841
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
...nor do I believe in the concept of them. This is the kind of crap you get with corporations. No one person has any accountability for anything, and everyone is a slave to the investors, not to the customers. It is remarkable the way decision are made in corporations. It is a wonder they are not all bankrupt already. All I want is a company that resembles a person in some way, shape, or form, not some nebulous blob.

My father is a Kodak Canada retiree. I discussed the information that PE shared with us here about Eastman Kodak ("EK") retirees with him, and he has made enquiries since then.

In short, it appears that the unfortunate situation with the EK retirees and their benefits is limited (at the present time) to the United States. As I've posted before, I expect that the problem is almost entirely related to the incredible escalations in the costs of those benefits (in the USA), and EK's response is one of necessity, rather than convenience, or even business efficacy.

Kodak Canada is a wholly owned subsidiary of EK. As such, any cost incurred by Kodak Canada directly affect EK's bottom line. Despite that, there remains a supportive environment for Kodak Canada retirees. My father retired 24 years ago. He was middle level management. There are a few middle to upper level management people who worked with my father who are still working at Kodak Canada. None of them hesitate to accept or return his call. Although that involves cost to the company, my sense is that it is encouraged, rather than discouraged.

There is still a community of employees, and they include the retirees. My father still receives regular newsletters, and could still access some employee discounts, if he so chose.

When Kodak Canada closed down most of their extensive manufacturing and other facilities in Toronto, they didn't try to minimize the fact, but instead decided to celebrate the history, and invited all the current and retired employees to participate in that celebration. Every employee, current and retired, received a DVD full of historical images of the Toronto site, highlighting all that was accomplished there.

My father, and everyone he knows who once worked with him, still seem to remain incredibly loyal to Kodak Canada. Despite huge reductions to their business, it seems to me that Kodak Canada remains incredibly faithful to their retirees, and continues to support them, at least to the extent that it is able.

As far as I can tell, that means it is far from a "nebulous blob".

By the way, my father, and I expect most of the other Kodak retirees, remain as passionate advocates of Kodak products. I expect that that behaviour is enough of a business benefit for Kodak to make it easy for Kodak to defend any retiree expenses when accounting to their shareholders.

Also by the way, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a significant number of outstanding Kodak shares are owned directly, or indirectly, by Kodak employees, or Kodak retirees.

On the customer side, I shoot Kodak film almost exclusively, and am convinced that Kodak has my best consumer interests in mind.

Matt
 
  • haris
  • Deleted

PKM-25

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
1,980
Location
Enroute
Format
Multi Format
In fact, I buy Kodak and Ilford products and think both companies are doing the best they can with a rapidly shrinking market. Boycotting anyones products in this hard time is suicide for the ardent analog photographer.

Word!
 

PHOTOTONE

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
2,412
Location
Van Buren, A
Format
Large Format
I think this Kodak camera is just the Kodak name on an existing camera, in order for Kodak to offer complete packages of materials to analog photography courses in Colleges and Universities.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom