Re: Leica and APS

[Eric Welch <ewelch@gp.magick.net>]

At 12:53 PM 7/7/96 -0600, you wrote:

>Serious photographers are a tiny minority, which has limited economic
>impact. It is true that 120 film is still around, mainly because there are
>serious photographers. However, If APS is successful, then it may pose a
>serious threat to 35mm. 120 film will survive 35mm may not.

For what it's worth, Kodak has said it will not replace traditional 35mm,
because serious photographers, and that covers more than just pros, have a
large impact on film makers. For example, I shoot about 1,000 rolls of film
a year, and that's nowhere near unusual for a pro. Kodak says they'll hand
out 150,000 rolls of film just for the Olympics. If the pro market is so
small, would be give that much away free? I don't think so. You're right
about the proportion, but I think the economic benefits of selling to pros
is important to Kodak. Just supporting them isn't all that important these
days. I think Fuji is in the same situation. Pros are economically
beneficial, and as long as they are, they will cut the film to our sizes.
The APS film itself is supposed to be pretty good, to make up for its
smaller size. (So was Kodachrome 200 or whatever they made disk film on).
All they have to do is cut the film differently. I just don't see how that
will change things all that much. 

Some assorted ramblings: 

How many snap shooters does my 1,000 rolls make up for? The vast majority of
snapshooters and pros shoot negative film, but does it kill of chrome? No.
Like you said, the majority shoot 35mm, does that kill medium format (there
are a lot more pros using 35mm and MF than MF exclusively I would think)?
NO. I'm afraid it will drive up the price of 35mm film, but it won't kill it.

On the other hand, requiring people to buy new cameras, and processors to
buy new machinery, THAT I think just might kill APS. I worked in a lab and
processed about 225,000 rolls of disk film in one year while I was
establishing my residence in Missouri. Where are those cameras now? And who
will risk sinking the money it takes to process the film. I think it's
doomed. But some of the technology is sound, so we could benefit.