Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kodak To Stop Selling Film Cameras In U.S.

Posted by timothy on from the pixels-are-cheaper-than-film dept.

MikeDataLink writes "Kodak has announced today that they are no longer going to sell or manufacture film based cameras in the USA or Europe (except for disposables) and instead concentrate on Digital cameras. It looks like consumers have spoken and film is finally going to go the way of the dinosaur."

4 of 656 comments (clear)

  1. Not much of a change actually. by Kobal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The editor here reeks of technogeek bigotry. Kodak hasn't produced a really noteworthy film camera since the then omnipresent brownie, anyway.
    They still make film, though, and that's what they do best. I don't see Kodak abandoning film anytime soon. Discontinuing classic films like Tri-X, Technical Pan or Kodachrome would only earn them a worldwide boycott from professional photographers. I think they learned their lesson when they discontinued Kodachrome 25 a while back.

  2. Hmmm by radicalskeptic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to some, to get the quality of 35mm analog film you'll need at least 10 megapixels on your digital camera.

    You can buy such a camera, but be prepared to spend over 1,000 USD. I'm not so sure film is going to be disappearing any time soon.

    --
    WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
  3. Re:demise of film... not... yet by Kosgrove · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Kodak cameras have always been of below-average quality AFAIK (even dating back to the 1930's), so it's not like they're giving up on what was previously known as their staple product.

    When a company known for their cameras, like Nikon, Cannon, Pentax, etc. gives up on "analog" cameras, then we'll really be reaching a milestone. However, I suspect that will never happen (or not happen anytime soon) due to the usefulness of analog cameras in photography as an art.

    To make what in my view is a very clever analogy (because I thought of it), it's like turntables - they won't ever stop being produced altogether because of their demand in artistic (i.e. DJ) circles. However, I'm sure that we'll see the number of companies that develop film decrease over time. If I were Ritz Camera (a popular one-hour photo chain the northeastern US), I might be getting rather scared.

  4. Film, photo and life by MacBorg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am an advanced photo student who has not gone digital yet for the following reasons: 1. Cost - I've invested close to 2K in Nikon SLR hardware in the last four years and to duplicate such a setup in dSLR gear is EXTREMELY expensive (if I'm talking 35mm quality or better) 2. Quality - film is simply more deailed... i'll just use my negative scanner... 3. Archival: Good film negatives will last 5-10 decades... digital files are good only as long as you can read them. I would love to see a permenent 'negative'-like object for digital (platform independant & exceedingy durable. 4. B&W - to my knowledge, there is no dSLR that captures the 'metallic' aspect of good B&W negatives - and yes, I know that this is an effect of the silver emulsion... I just love it ...however, Kodak's PhD cameras were worthless anyway... just so long as they don't kill TMX-100 or Portra-200 ---