Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Why isn't digital.....  (Read 4730 times)

JJP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
Why isn't digital.....
« on: October 28, 2006, 12:59:41 PM »

Just curious....since some have not survived and others are hanging by a thread......Don't forget, we live in a world where digital cameras become obsolete in a couple years and why isn't this a manufacturer's job security?
Heck, some people still have nikon F's and F2's that are still useable.
jj
Logged
JJ

howiesmith

  • Guest
Why isn't digital.....
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2006, 01:04:34 PM »

Quote
Just curious....since some have not survived and others are hanging by a thread......Don't forget, we live in a world where digital cameras become obsolete in a couple years and why isn't this a manufacturer's job security?
Heck, some people still have nikon F's and F2's that are still useable.
jj
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

May be it is too difficult for a manufacturer to carve a niche market.  A niche market has relatively low cost because the comapany has been making essentially the same product for a long time, and high margines.  No competition to speak of.

Turn over in product design isn't the friend of the manufacturer.
Logged

cescx

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
    • http://
Why isn't digital.....
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2006, 01:40:55 PM »

It is evident... the users we pay the product investigation, while before alone we paid the manufacturaton.  Surely, some already they know the product that will arrive inside 5 years, but they should pay off their technology.  

I also yearn for the epoch in which to buy a C/M was already the last step, was guaranteed by life, and had not swum upper in the distant future... but that no longer will return.  One requiem for this  
Logged
Francesc Costa

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13733
Why isn't digital.....
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2006, 03:09:26 PM »

Quote
It is evident... the users we pay the product investigation, while before alone we paid the manufacturaton.  Surely, some already they know the product that will arrive inside 5 years, but they should pay off their technology. 

I also yearn for the epoch in which to buy a C/M was already the last step, was guaranteed by life, and had not swum upper in the distant future... but that no longer will return.  One requiem for this 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82698\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Francesc

Buenas noches

Yes, that 500C and its later brother the CM were indeed the ideal way of saying 'I have arrived!' Trouble is, as it turns out, even they were not for life because that life will end when film is no longer profitable to manufacture.

All general photography has been amateur driven/financed and it doesn't take genius to see that the world of the amateur has swung to digital. Even Leica has gone there - will its film products be allowed to continue much longer? If the taster from Michael about the M8 is accurate, then perhaps Leica has just managed to climb aboard the liferaft at the very eleventh hour!

Hasta luego - Rob C

cescx

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
    • http://
Why isn't digital.....
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2006, 03:30:14 PM »

Esper que t'ho estiguis passnt be amb unes bones Lotes a ses illes

I agree, and I am one more than has sell my gear, that believed by life, of 6 bodies and 17 lenses Hass, to finance the digital change, that to priori, me not the same versatility offers. but all will arrive.
Logged
Francesc Costa

Scott_H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Why isn't digital.....
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2006, 12:58:14 AM »

Because it costs money to make new cameras, and their life cycle is only a couple of years.  R&D, tooling to manufacture components, and capital machines to assemble those components cost millions of dollars.  That cost has to go into every camera sold, in a very competitive and cost driven market.

I'm glad I'm not in that business.

Ray Maxwell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Why isn't digital.....
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2006, 10:54:08 AM »

Quote from: Rob C,Oct 28 2006, 07:09 PM
Francesc

Yes, that 500C and its later brother the CM were indeed the ideal way of saying 'I have arrived!' Trouble is, as it turns out, even they were not for life because that life will end when film is no longer profitable to manufacture.

Hasta luego - Rob C


*********
Sorry Rob...My 500CM has a Leaf Valeo 22 Wi on the back and is still going strong.  Yes, I sold most of my film magizines.

Ray Maxwell
Logged

howiesmith

  • Guest
Why isn't digital.....
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2006, 11:54:25 AM »

"... when film is no longer profitable to manufacture."

And when will that be?  Don't forget, camera makers are not usually film makers.  Just because Canon may switch entirely to digital does not mean Kodak or Fuji will fold their film tents and leave.  Film makers will develope niche markets.  They will be able to make films at low cost because they have the technology and capacity, and sell them a high prices because a few will still want them.  That means high profit margins for film and a good business to stay in.  $25K for a digital back will buy a lot of T-Max.

Car makers may stop making gasoline driven vehicles some day, but Exon will keep making gasoline for a long time.  Don't forget that when color films came out, most amateurs started using it, but b&w is still there.  Did 35mm kill 4x5?
Logged

benInMA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 186
Why isn't digital.....
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2006, 12:00:09 PM »

Digital cameras are also a nightmare for the manufacturers.  They are not going to keep making quantum leaps in performance forever, and when they do the sales of cameras is going to plummet.

Figure another 5 years everyone can go buy a full frame Nikon or Canon with 20mp for an affordable price.  

Once you have one why wouldn't you keep it for 10 years.

Then the bottom falls out and the camera companies will have to drastically slow development in order to not lose their shirts.

It's going to make digital cameras even more of a big company game they already are.  

It's already happening with P&S cameras.  Talk to the average snapshooter and those people are not buying a new camera every 18 months like they were from 2000-2004 or so.  We're already seeing the shakeout there.

At least with film they had a portion of the system that had to be constantly replaced.  (On top of all the body R&D costs being far lower)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13733
Why isn't digital.....
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2006, 01:25:45 PM »

Quote from: Ray Maxwell,Oct 30 2006, 03:54 PM
Quote from: Rob C,Oct 28 2006, 07:09 PM
Francesc

Yes, that 500C and its later brother the CM were indeed the ideal way of saying 'I have arrived!' Trouble is, as it turns out, even they were not for life because that life will end when film is no longer profitable to manufacture.

Hasta luego - Rob C
*********
Sorry Rob...My 500CM has a Leaf Valeo 22 Wi on the back and is still going strong.  Yes, I sold most of my film magizines.

Ray Maxwell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Ray,

Yes, there is the possibility of the various digital backs for the 500 range of Hasselblad, but as a well-known photographer friend of mine says, it isn't the same thing. The square format with its specifically designed optics is one thing; the same camera with a different format of back is not part of the 'create and design in the square' that this guy, as well as myself during my ownership of the format enjoyed. Either of us could have gone 645 but chose not so to do... Apart from the questions about lenses for digital use etc. cropping later isn't the same creative buzz at all. It was the same using 35mm film: I always filled the frame, one of the reasons for going to Nikon and staying there!

But then, as I often say, that's only one guy's way of looking at things - it doesn't make me right and you wrong.

Ciao - Rob C

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5624
Why isn't digital.....
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2006, 12:52:13 PM »

There is a common factor to most or all of companies of camera systems that have failed or are struggling in the digital transition: being tied mostly or entirely to film formats like 35mm and larger (in particular Bronica, Contax, Rollei, and the medium format divisions of Pentax and Fuji) or being slow to make the investment necessary for the transition (Kodak, Konica-Minolta), and even being slow on the previous transition to offering the option of auto-focus.

The camera makers who embraced new digital formats early enough, either fixed lens compacts or SLR formats like DX, EF-S and 4/3, are doing fine; maybe even the formerly struggling Minolta mount DSLR system now that Sony has taken over. In particular, the latest quarterly and semi-annual reports from Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax are all quite healthy on digital cameras. Of those, Pentax seems the weakest on profits, but I believe that Pentax along with Minolta were already struggling by the end of the film era.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up