On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Dr Peter Gilbert wrote:
> What if we can't buy 35mm film for our belowed OM's?
It is a perfectly safe bet that film will be around 10+ years from now.
> Most of the plastic cameras sold these days just don't seem to be built to
> last, or even to be repaired. They are almost meant to be thrown out when
> they break as they are then obsolete consumer items, and fixing them would
> cost more than replacing them. I wonder how many of the cameras sold to the
> consumer market in 1995 will still be around and servicable 10 years later?
That is their inherent beauty to the customer. A C-note buys you 5-10
years of camera. I see them at garage sales all the time, perfectly
working P&S's for $3-15, being sold because they are outdated, most around
the 5 year mark.
> Compare that with a (now) 20 year old OM-1 or OM-2 that are just as
> desirable now as when they were released, and just as useable. If they do
> disappear from circulation, to be replaced by "next years model" digital
> consumer cameras, the installed base of 35mm film users will decline, along
> with the market demand.
With the spectre of digital looming, film sales went up 12% last year.
That is hardly a dying industry. What we are forgetting is this:
1) All of us on the internet are "geeks" (into computers in some way).
2) We are an economic elite, far richer than most of the rest of the
country, in that we have enough disposable income to plunk down $1200
to 20K for a computer for home use.
Many people who have the money do not want to wank around with digitalia
(it is time consuming). Second, there is a steady stream of "deserters"
from the internet, much to the surprise of AOL & others (people who have
the machines and are becoming UN-wired). Third, there's a huge number
of people in this country (and elsewhere) who cannot afford any of this
stuff, and for whom the reality of a $100.00 camera and $80 a year for all
the film they will use and double prints, to boot, is all they need. Rest
easy, film's going to be around for a long time. The Chemical darkroom is
rapidly withering, though.
Digital is fine for photojournalism, and small sized reproductions for
newspapers. Quality digital presently means a Leaf back for your Sinar or
Hasselblad or Rollei at $30k. That's a big expense to amortize for most
pros in the 18 months it takes for that back to become obsolete. Plus
there are stiff limitations in their use.
I welcome digital imaging, think it is a revolution, but the death of
film is a long way off, due to real temporal and economic factors. When
a person can buy a digital camera that gives film quality at $150 (in
constant 1998 dollars) or so, is not obsolete for 5 years, and they can
get double prints that last 70 years at a cost of .38 per frame at their
local drugstore, then the days of film are over, assuming everyone
embraces the technology.
*= Doris Fang =*
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|