Steve, your link didn't work for me, who knows, here's two more for the same article, if it turns out this linking thing is tricky
How much longer can photographic film hold on? - Yahoo! Finance A decade-long nose-dive in photographic film sales signals a technology icon's fade-out | StarTribune.com
It is sad & a bit scary. Should I have a windfall, I'm not sure I'd invest... erm spend... on a very expensive film camera - unless I planned to sell it again within 5 years, say. I would spend some on a few vintage cameras that I'd like to try.
But then, would you invest... erm, spend... on a very expensive digital camera either? In 5 years how much of its value would be left? But at least, assuming you could get batteries, there would be memory cards, assuming there would be memory cards still made
At the camera show I go to, the old timers reminisce about the Leica Crash, for example, where people lost thousands of dollars in the value of their equipment, due to digital. Now of course, at least the lenses have bounced back some, but not to the levels of the film era.
I'm also thinking of analogies to the stereo/music business: when CDs came along, the record labels were pretty wilful in forcing us to adapt: they simply didn't release the LP. The stereo makers had to jump on the CD player wagon, and offered 6 month 'improvement' cycles to get the populace excited. Of course, the turntable makers by and large did not stop making turntables, in fact, they found a better paying though smaller market. Eventually the LP came back, though not nearly to where it used to be. In cameras, let's talk just 35mm-ish SLR and RF, who kept producing pro quality film cameras? Leica and Nikon are just about the only ones that come to mind. At least Kodak and Fuji haven't stopped selling us film, unlike those rat bastard record companies...
The thing is, we need to keep buying new film, and supporting the photo finishing places that still do a good job for us.