[Ontarian50]

Tell me if I am wrong but pentax got into the DSLR market quiet late.

I think Pentax got into the DSLR market as early as they could. Once the six megapixel sensors became available and good enough for enthusiasts, Pentax had to wait for the price point to come down to where they had waiting customers.

Before then, DSLRs had started out at the $60,000 price point, then down to $20,000, then $15,000 (mainly Kodak DCS series), and they performed pretty poorly compared to a roll of 400 ISO film. But the electronic images were useful to journalists at the time, and newspapers bought them then, knowing they would quickly become obsolete, but if they got a couple years use from one, that was okay. And newspapers primarily had stocks of Canon or Nikon lenses, and pretty much never Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, or Contax.

So when Nikon and later Canon started making their own DSLRs at the $6,000 to $8,000 price level, Pentax and the others still had to wait. Unfortunately, they also watched Canon and Nikon work the bugs out of their systems and no doubt file a few patents, to go along with those of Kodak.

When the sensors grew to six megapixels, and it was possible to build a "prosumer" DSLR for $3,200 (and quickly dropped to $2,400), the timing was right for Pentax and Minolta (and Fuji) to make something for their loyal fans. The problem is they likely had to pay royalties to all the others for their technologies, as well as buying Sony's sensors. Minolta (later Konica-Minolta) gave up and threw in the towel. But we're fortunate that Pentax held in there. I think it's unfortunate that Canon and Nikon stole a march on the other companies because of their dominance in the newspaper/journalism market, where very expensive, and buggy cameras, could be test beds for future production, and then just tossed aside. Amateur enthusiasts just didn't have six grand to drop on a body with a four megapixel noisy sensor, knowing it would be eclipsed in 18 months.

[eddie1960]

I think Pentax got into the DSLR market as early as they could. Once the six megapixel sensors became available and good enough for enthusiasts, Pentax had to wait for the price point to come down to where they had waiting customers.

Before then, DSLRs had started out at the $60,000 price point, then down to $20,000, then $15,000 (mainly Kodak DCS series), and they performed pretty poorly compared to a roll of 400 ISO film. But the electronic images were useful to journalists at the time, and newspapers bought them then, knowing they would quickly become obsolete, but if they got a couple years use from one, that was okay. And newspapers primarily had stocks of Canon or Nikon lenses, and pretty much never Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, or Contax.

So when Nikon and later Canon started making their own DSLRs at the $6,000 to $8,000 price level, Pentax and the others still had to wait. Unfortunately, they also watched Canon and Nikon work the bugs out of their systems and no doubt file a few patents, to go along with those of Kodak.

When the sensors grew to six megapixels, and it was possible to build a "prosumer" DSLR for $3,200 (and quickly dropped to $2,400), the timing was right for Pentax and Minolta (and Fuji) to make something for their loyal fans. The problem is they likely had to pay royalties to all the others for their technologies, as well as buying Sony's sensors. Minolta (later Konica-Minolta) gave up and threw in the towel. But we're fortunate that Pentax held in there. I think it's unfortunate that Canon and Nikon stole a march on the other companies because of their dominance in the newspaper/journalism market, where very expensive, and buggy cameras, could be test beds for future production, and then just tossed aside. Amateur enthusiasts just didn't have six grand to drop on a body with a four-megapixel noisy sensor, knowing it would be eclipsed in 18 months.

Well Minolta didn't so much throw in the towel as much as sell the division but not the name rights to Sony. It kept the mount alive as sony developed their product line. they still have 3 a mount cameras you hardly ever see or hear about - aside from a flurry of mentions when a99ii came out---it is actually a pretty impressive camera)

[stevebrot]

They had a great history of Film SLR cameras so why did they completely drop it?

The market for film SLRs essentially dried up in the mid-2000s.*

FWIW, Pentax continued active marketing and sales of film cameras for several years after the introduction of the *ist D in 2003 with the medium format 654NII being available as late as the current decade and the *ist film camera shadowing the market run of its digital cousin. The MZ-S and other MZ/ZX-series bodies were also long in the market, though I am not sure of discontinued dates.


Steve

* The subject is a little cloudy in that availability and demand has varied by market. Up until recently, both Nikon and Canon provided their flagship film SLRs as pro offerings. Nikon still offers the F6 for pros and the Cosina-made FM10 for the low end. It and other derivatives of the Cosina CT-1 Super continue to be available in various markets.

[eddie1960]

The market for film SLRs essentially dried up in the mid-2000s.*

FWIW, Pentax continued active marketing and sales of film cameras for several years after the introduction of the *ist D in 2003 with the medium format 654NII being available as late as the current decade and the *ist film camera shadowing the market run of its digital cousin. The MZ-S and other MZ/ZX-series bodies were also long in the market, though I am not sure of discontinued dates.


Steve

* The subject is a little cloudy in that availability and demand has varied by market. Up until recently, both Nikon and Canon provided their flagship film SLRs as pro offerings. Nikon still offers the F6 for pros and the Cosina-made FM10 for the low end. It and other derivatives of the Cosina CT-1 Super continue to be available in various markets.

I'm not sure whether the nikon/cosina offerings are any longer seeing production runs, the fm10 is no longer on BH photo for instance...medieum format it is linhoff and horseman with some specialised 617 and 6x9 offerings, large format there is still a pretty large selection (linhoff, wista, cambo, toyo view and arca swiss) there is no suitable substitute for what large format can do in the digital world for the most part , 35mm seems to be pretty much leica the f6 and a few plastic point and shoots
Lomo product covers 35 and 120 with a load of dubious but fun cameras for the hipster brigade (though the Brick and mortar store failed here quite a while back)

[stevebrot]

the fm10 is no longer on BH photo for instance

B&H offers what sells in their target (USA) market.

As for medium format, don't let the B&H options fool you. One can still buy a Rolleiflex, for example, just not from B&H.

Rolleiflex TLR's and Accessories


Steve

[Digitalis]

Leica dropped SLRs completely in the early 2000s

The Leica S, Announced in 2008 at Photokina is a digital medium format SLR. Although it was originally prototyped to be a mirrorless camera, Leica took things in a different direction. Physically the camera isn't much bigger than a K1 or Canon 6D.

[RGlasel]

I don't see Hollywood abandoning film anytime soon, until streaming completely kills off the theatre business anyway.

RED doesn't appear to make consumer grade video cameras.
The first year in which top-grossing films were shot on digital cameras was 2002, however it wasn’t until 2012 that at least half of the films were shot digitally

Most of the "films" shown in theatres are stored on hard drives to be played over digital projectors.

[eddie1960]

RED doesn't appear to make consumer grade video cameras.
The first year in which top-grossing films were shot on digital cameras was 2002, however it wasn’t until 2012 that at least half of the films were shot digitally

Most of the "films" shown in theatres are stored on hard drives to be played over digital projectors.

yep been a long time since i had a film reel snap when at the movies. all the second run theaters were forced to upgrade because they couldnt get film copies

[stevebrot]

Most of the "films" shown in theatres are stored on hard drives to be played over digital projectors.

Good point, and that number includes those that were shot on film.

That being said, there are the occasional movies that are shot on film and distributed as 35mm or 70mm prints. A good example would be Quentin Tarantino's 2015 release "The Hateful Eight" which premiered on 70mm at select theaters worldwide, many of which had to be retrofitted with appropriate anamorphic projectors. I live near Portland, Oregon and we are fortunate to have properly equipped theaters and had the privilege of having a long run of the film in its "analog" form.


Steve

[Bob 256]

What's happening in theaters is a lot like what happened to 70mm theaters that were the rage in the 70's. Many major films were shot in Super Panavision and ran in Cinerama theaters (e.g., 2001, TRON) but now there aren't any 70mm theaters that I know of - all gone. Theaters that offer film showing are going the same way, so film is becoming a dead technology (for movie production). There's no current digital projection system that's up to film I max image quality but that didn't prevent the demise of 70mm film there either. But back to the OP's original topic. Few camera manufactures can afford (nor choose) to offer a product which will likely soon become near-obsolete because their fuel source is gone. So is life.

[stevebrot]

But back to the OP's original topic. Few camera manufactures can afford (nor choose) to offer a product which will likely soon become near-obsolete because their fuel source is gone. So is life.

As I read this, I was reminded that the bulk of the used SLRs available on the market today are remnants of the huge surge of consumer SLR purchase that started in the late 1970s and continued well into the late 1980s. I remember standing in long lines at mall camera shops in 1982 for a chance for a few minutes hands-on with the latest products from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Ricoh, and several other brands. Camera World in Portland occupied a street-level store covering the better part of a city block, all of it packed with customers eager to spend significant money on SLR cameras and accessories. That era has been widely considered to be the high point of film SLR development and popularity. A huge number of those cameras and accessories are still in working order and available for use today.*

Consider now the current market potential for film SLR (both new and used) sales and the potential penetration world-wide for a 35mm film SLR sold new at a profitable price point. Cosina still has the capability and is still making cameras that are selling primarily in Asia. The market in the U.S. and Europe is too soft and sufficiently glutted with quality, low-priced, used gear to make selling here worth doing.

Until there is a groundswell clamor for a new enthusiast-to-expert level film SLR and the pocketbooks to back the required purchase price**, no new cameras will present.


Steve

* I have five SLR bodies, at least 20 lenses, five electronic flash, and even a camera bag dating to that period, all full working condition.

** For example, the Nikon FM10 sells for close to $600 USD.

[eddie1960]

What's happening in theaters is a lot like what happened to 70mm theaters that were the rage in the 70's. Many major films were shot in Super Panavision and ran in Cinerama theaters (e.g., 2001, TRON) but now there aren't any 70mm theaters that I know of - all gone. Theaters that offer film showing are going the same way, so film is becoming a dead technology (for movie production). There's no current digital projection system that's up to film I max image quality but that didn't prevent the demise of 70mm film there either. But back to the OP's original topic. Few camera manufactures can afford (nor choose) to offer a product which will likely soon become near-obsolete because their fuel source is gone. So is life.

we still have several 70mm theaters on toronto. far more than we did in the 70s



---------- Post added 13th Mar 2019 at 21:51 ----------

the fm10 costing clpse to 600 us for a plastic body basic camera is an example.of why it will be hard to aell a better cam. the f6 at 25-2700 us makes virtually no sense. aside. deom cost of film and processing ...to scan 35 at a level that even approaches digital ff means using a 16000 imacon
a good flatbed will still be soft by comparison. .

[Alex645]

Tell me if I am wrong but pentax got into the DSLR market quiet late. They had a great history of Film SLR cameras so why did they completely drop it?
They should have kept one SLR that gets maybe over time updated from time to time to work with their newer lenses…
As the brand pentax will exist for a century in november it would be a good surprise to release a modern updated commemorative Film SLR in a nice looking old style .

I wouldn't say Pentax got into the DSLR market late. However, Kodak chose a Nikon SLR body to pioneer a lot of the early DSLR development from Kodak. Canon was simply better funded and had more to lose if they didn't transition quickly, so they did.

Although film is not dead, the entire infrastructure of the consumer film industry simply collapsed because it was no longer profitable. That, plus a ton of unused used SLR cameras available, it is not profitable to keep any of their film cameras in production with a network for parts and repairs.

With that reality, I agree and wish someone would produce a film SLR classic with mounts compatible with modern or even legacy lenses. But the best we can hope for is improved 3D printing technology and a niche market for parts and repairs to keep our classics running.

[robert52]

Well you learn something every day I didnt think company made a film camera these days

[Ontarian50]

B&H offers what sells in their target (USA) market.

As for medium format, don't let the B&H options fool you. One can still buy a Rolleiflex, for example, just not from B&H.

Rolleiflex TLR's and Accessories


Steve

You can click on that link to Rollei stuff if you like. But if you try to buy one, you just get the notification they're "sold out" and "no longer in production". Franke and Heidecke got auctioned off some years ago, and there's no real hope of new Rolleis being produced - at least until someone buys the rights to the name and launches a kickstarter program to get a Chinese made version into production at ten grand