Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

I've been hearing for a few years now that some people just like the "realistic" look of film.
Cell phone pix are "flat". Ok for up to 4x6 prints, and PC screens, mostly.
Many digital cameras just make better "flat" looking pictures.
Hand out some wedding 4x6s done with an old Nikon w/ 135mm at f:8- oohs and aahs.
I recently did a family thing at Knotts, brought my Zeiss 6x4.5, and the prints are wonderful.
The nephew with the 2 year old Canon thinks he needs another lens ...

The "other" problem is cost vs convenience.
A 16mp+ digital camera, a decent prime and a pair of zooms goes for @ 10% of a decent
similar rig 30 years ago- NOT including inflation. RenFaire coming up- a spare battery in me pocket, a 55-200 "kit" lens and there's an EZ/PZ 600 shots in a few hours. And I'll only process the pix I like. Really really convenient, reasonable equipment and low electrical cost.
Or 1 of my film cameras. @ $20 to 30 per dozen shots, and I might not notice that tiny lens smear for a week, after I've paid. I keep some pill bottles in a shotgun bandoleer to protect the film cartridges, and doubled-up socks to protect those 3 lenses. Yet another camera bag ...
Remember Polaroid? Old guard got too old. New money people came in, with NEW! and IMPROVED! admin salaries, prices and marketing. In a year my cost per print went from @ $1 to @ $3+, and that camera found a place on a shelf. They could have licensed the film to "offshore" facilities, and made better quality cameras, but noooo. Old cameras with new cases, and make their money on old chemistry. Didn't work. The cost outweighed the convenience.
I'm getting real partial to the Nikon A900. A very nice pocket almost bridge type camera for the price, takes AAs, and makes "good enough" pictures for most of my walk arounds. Price and convenience wins. Blasphemy? The pictures look great if I lean on something.
So, my point is that supply and demand aren't just the only deciding issue here. It's also price and convenience. ROI: Return On Investment. Do I (or other nostalgics) really want to do that over again? For the price of an old Nikon FM3 and a couple good lenses I could get a A900, or a P1000, and have the money left over to do a quick photo trip. For the price of 6 rolls of film, and their processing and a weeks wait, I can email and get printed a couple hundred prints, while SWMBO and I have lunch with the money left over, and pick them up when we're done.

MickyB

Yes,.. Nobody that I know of is making new film cameras. Oh wait!.. Fuji and Polaroid seemed to have made a hit with, of all things, the instant film camera market. Hmmm. As for demand,.. economically, increased demand always raises prices of anything from A-Z. Especially when there is a static supply.

MickyB

I think you are splitting hairs here but missing the point. My decision on whether I use film or digital is largely based on my customers request/desire. Almost to a person any copy work of old family/historical photos that I do is per the demand of the customer. They want negatives! They know how long negatives or 2x2's will last. Digital hasn't been around long enough to satisfy their expectations. Not to mention the media has become a bit of a moving target. Those customers want once and done. OTH I've been doing all of my wildlife/bird photos with a D7100 since it's inception. Convenience and speed etc,etc play a role here among other advantages without getting into the nuts and bolts of it.
A good Nikon F2, Nikkormat Ftn, or Fm can be purchased for about $125.00. Most film from Fuji or Kodak can be purchase for 7$- $9 per 36 exp.roll. Most lenses and accessories are also priced economically. Processing at the shop runs about $16. per roll 36 exp with doubles being made. In short, you can buy a lot of stuff for the price of a good superzoom. Which by the way I used a P500 and a P510 years ago. Sold images to several magazines. However, my Nikkormat EL produced better images with Fuji Super G.
There are a lot of folks out there making a good living with 4x5 view cameras. Not my bag, I don't do tintypes or glass plates. I know a few younger folks that are making a bundle with the Instax and similar cameras at public events. I can respect the people that can make an honest living doing it. It's a niche market. Just like some of the things I mentioned earlier that apply to my approach to the craft. Photography is very subjective like a lot of other pursuits. I have found in the past 40 years that newer,faster and better are not necessarily synonyms. The history books are full of such examples.
The big surprise for me the last couple of years is how many younger people want to shoot film and darkroom. My other observation is that the bulk of customers coming into the camera shops looking for classic RF's and SLR's are younger usually under 35. They seem to like classic cars from the 60's and 70's as well!

BebuLamar

There is no demand for new film cameras (although Leica still make them and Nikon still make them too). There are plenty of used perfectly good working film cameras to go around. I personally have about 40 of working film cameras.

MickyB

Kudos to you! I did meet someone the other day that recently purchased an F5. However it is not truly mechanical. The rising prices on the classics is notably on the "all-mechanical non battery dependent all springs levers and gears models". They were too expensive to make in the late 80's and early 90's and the rest is history. Kinda like cars. They don't use throttle cables anymore. All electronic,..it's just plain cheaper to make.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Me too. Also. I have the Zenit EM, with a Helios 58 and a Pentax 135 lens.
My idea of a FF camera. I still use it on occasion. Great quality, great pictures, getting tired of jacked up processing costs. The meter is kinda shot- I adjusted it it to the stop, then I use 400 film, set the meter to 100, and then it;s close.