No so fast about film leaving (Sony just ended support for Beta don't
forget).
Here is something very, very telling:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressCenter/presentations/2002annual
Mtg.shtml
It is Kodak's shareholder's meeting. Summary:
"Nearly 85 billion film exposures were made last year.
525 million households worldwide own at least one film camera. That
compares to about 29 million households which own at least one
digital still camera.
U.S. film sales grew despite the recession.
Kodak sees great growth potential for film in both U.S. and global
markets. Expanding the benefits of film is Kodak's #1 strategic
goal. "
Film is here to stay as digital costs (printer, ink, a GOOD camera) are too
expensive for most. P&S for email seem to rule the day. People said VHS
would die 10 yrs ago with DVD, it hasn't. Either has paper banking. People
are far too quick to predict the demise of a product, and are usually wrong.
Happens all the time in marketting.
Hey, people predicted Survior would never last!!!!!
-Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Winsor Crosby [mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: October 8, 2002 11:31 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: 35mm film lost the battle against digital ?
>There's been a lot of discussion of digital versus film and which is
>"best". Much of this, at least for me, misses many of the points of
>why I won't go digital for some time:
>Firstly I'd be investing in equipment that will be largely obselete
>in a couple of years. Something like Moore's Law probably applies to
>electronic camera gear where performance/capacity double every
>couple of years (at half the price). I'm very unlikely to see decent
>used values after a few years (unlike Oly gear).
>The same applies to the PC and printer that I'll need to "process"
>my multi megabyte picture files. I'd also need a something terabyte
>back up device to hold all those pics. Apart from the investment,
>will all that hardware and software I'd need still be operational
>and supported when I want to view all these pictures in my dotage?
>I don't want to be sitting at a computer screen all the time,
>resizing and dithering or whatever - my job's with computers and at
>the end of a working day I've had enough of the critters.
>I still like a slide show.
>In summary, film (plus Oly gear) ideally meets my requirements,
>provides excellent value for money and largely keeps its value.
>Oh, it's also nice to handle all that lovely Oly gear isn't it? Not
>that I'm addicted or anything (I deny denial by the way).
>Mike Blayney (happy with the gear I've got - well almost, there is
>that 300mm 4.5 I saw the other day......................).
I quite agree with most of what you say, but I think the Moore's Law
argument is not really a good one since at some point not only your
digital cam will become obsolete, but so will your film camera. Some
will argue that your film camera became obsolete with the advent of
autofocus. So what is the difference using an obsolete film camera
or an obsolete digital cam.
I think that I will probably switch when I can only buy drug
store/discount store film for my camera, which is going to happen.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< 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 >
|