Demise of APS

[Stephen Anstey]

So in the space of less than five years it looks as though it won't be long before it is assigned to that ever increasing camera graveyard in the sky.

Minolta has just announced they are stopping production and development of the APS camera system.

Now Minolta are one of the 'big four' camera manufacturers and were one of the five that developed the APS system. If they pull out then maybe it won't be long before the others follow suit.

APS of course was a system brought out in 1996 and promised to rejuvenate the photography market. So what is the problem?

Yes your ahead of me DIGITAL. I find the way in which things have developed (excuse the pun) in the camera market over recent years absolutely amazing, though I am hardly suprised. Once the digital camera becomes within the reach of the average picture taking man in the street, it will leave all else behind. Look what has happened to DVD's they are apparently the fastest growing piece of technology ever in terms of sales, presumably this is because the price has come down to a point where they are more attractive to buy the machines.

And yet, their development is far from over. Already recordable DVD machine are on the market, but as yet they are too expensive. Give them a year or two and we will all have one.

So this rather begs the question as to when the best time is to jump in and get the first digital camera? We constantly hear people say they are waiting till they match the quality of film etc. etc. But personally I feel that the time is here now, and it only needs the prices to come down to make sales shoot up.

The same thing was ofen said about the PC, they were/are constantly developing and so what we bought now was soon going to be obsolete. Of course if you did not buy for this reason you would end up never buying. I am still using a P11 300mhz PC that is well obsolete, but it still does most things I need it to do, and will continue to do so unless I suddenly developed a liking for playing games or doing digital video work. Surely the same principles apply to purchasing a Digicam, the quality is here now, so unless you jump in soon you are simply missing out on all the advantages the system offers the photographer now.

These are just my thoughts on the issue you understand, and you may think I'm being a bore, but it certainly makes you think about how the photography market is going to develop (whoops there we go again!) over the next few years.

--Steve Anstey

 

[harry]

Steve,

Well stated thoughts. The APS idea was probably conceived before the digital photography was a remote possibility to compete with the film based photography. The market has pretty much spoken about the death of APS. Even without digital photography, the 35mm film still commands the market as the cost of 35mm films and prints has gone down to a point that it's no more than an expensive Starbucks coffee. I am happy to see APS go away so that the market could concentrate more on the digital photography without much distraction.

The 35mm film for point and shoot market would really be dead when most drug stores and supermarkets would allow pickup of prints from images uploaded from home computers to online photodevelopers. With competition, I hope one day there will be online photodevelopers charging 10 cents per 4x6 print. Then there would be absolute no reason to not have a digital camera.

Harry

So in the space of less than five years it looks as though it won't
be long before it is assigned to that ever increasing camera
graveyard in the sky.

Minolta has just announced they are stopping production and
development of the APS camera system.

Now Minolta are one of the 'big four' camera manufacturers and were
one of the five that developed the APS system. If they pull out
then maybe it won't be long before the others follow suit.

APS of course was a system brought out in 1996 and promised to
rejuvenate the photography market. So what is the problem?

Yes your ahead of me DIGITAL. I find the way in which things have
developed (excuse the pun) in the camera market over recent years
absolutely amazing, though I am hardly suprised. Once the digital
camera becomes within the reach of the average picture taking man
in the street, it will leave all else behind. Look what has
happened to DVD's they are apparently the fastest growing piece of
technology ever in terms of sales, presumably this is because the
price has come down to a point where they are more attractive to
buy the machines.

And yet, their development is far from over. Already recordable DVD
machine are on the market, but as yet they are too expensive. Give
them a year or two and we will all have one.

So this rather begs the question as to when the best time is to
jump in and get the first digital camera? We constantly hear people
say they are waiting till they match the quality of film etc. etc.
But personally I feel that the time is here now, and it only needs
the prices to come down to make sales shoot up.

The same thing was ofen said about the PC, they were/are constantly
developing and so what we bought now was soon going to be obsolete.
Of course if you did not buy for this reason you would end up never
buying. I am still using a P11 300mhz PC that is well obsolete, but
it still does most things I need it to do, and will continue to do
so unless I suddenly developed a liking for playing games or doing
digital video work. Surely the same principles apply to purchasing
a Digicam, the quality is here now, so unless you jump in soon you
are simply missing out on all the advantages the system offers the
photographer now.

These are just my thoughts on the issue you understand, and you may
think I'm being a bore, but it certainly makes you think about how
the photography market is going to develop (whoops there we go
again!) over the next few years.

--
Steve Anstey

--Harry

 

[Jon Ragnarsson]

The APS was nothing but a scam to let us buy less film at higher prices. Canon and Olympus (mju, eg.) have already showed that you can make very compact and easy to use cameras for 35mm. And I see no reason why you couldn't package the 35mm film in a APS-like system. (Easy to load canister, the index prints, etc...). The digital will take the APS place in 2-3 years, leaving the 35mm and larger film for the professonals. But even there the film is being challenged, like the Kodak 16Mpx back for the medium cameras.

The main threshold is the price, but the price for a point-and-shoot is still quite above the film version. The cheapest one with zoom I can find here is the Epson PhotoPC @ USD 350, I guess I could find similar 35mm/APS camera for maybe USD 100. My OM-2 is collecting dust, it just isn't worth the hassle of finishing the film, develop it, and look at the photos on small postcards, my photos just look so much better on my relative small 17" monitor. And they are available the same day.
But I'm ranting...

J.
--E-1OORS, S1OO, 0M-2

 

[Peter Galbavy]

The APS was nothing but a scam to let us buy less film at higher
prices. Canon and Olympus

I disagree, but only slightly. APS was a scam to make us pay more for developing and printing.

Note that the main players in this make much more money out of there development systems than out of the film and even the cameras.

APS was intended to provide the features of digital (which Canon started in 1988 with the Ion I think?) for consumers like index prints, different aspect ratios and frame information.

APS can join disc cameras and the rest for all I care - but the poor duped consumers may want to get part-ex on the cameras for their digital equivalents...--Peter Galbavy http://www.wonderland.org/Help decode CRW files: http://www.wonderland.org/crw/

 

[Ger Bee]

There are two points worth thinking about here.

Firstly the Digital camera will always be at a higher price relative to the film counterparts. Prices will settle down somewhat but we are already seeing the price of newly released equipment being a rate of inflation above the last model – Oly E20 and the D1x are probably the price point, or a little bit lower that one can realistically expect. Always remember that consortiums now have only one product to get a return on with digital cameras of all types – apart form a little home printing, a consortium’s film manufacturing lines and maybe processing chains will not yield the profits that they are used to.

Secondly – that obsolete computer of yours may very well buckle under the strain of the current crop of 5MP consumer cams and would be very underpowered with a raw 60MB file form a D1x. Processing and storage of the digital image is becoming something of an Achilles heel. I think the current digital capture and storage is just a transitory phase – it was not considered the most optimum of the available technologies but it was cheap, cheerful and available – and as you’ve already noted the general public took to it like ducks to water.

 

[Gerald boles]

So in the space of less than five years it looks as though it won't
be long before it is assigned to that ever increasing camera
graveyard in the sky.

Minolta has just announced they are stopping production and
development of the APS camera system.

Now Minolta are one of the 'big four' camera manufacturers and were
one of the five that developed the APS system. If they pull out
then maybe it won't be long before the others follow suit.

APS of course was a system brought out in 1996 and promised to
rejuvenate the photography market. So what is the problem?

Yes your ahead of me DIGITAL. I find the way in which things have
developed (excuse the pun) in the camera market over recent years
absolutely amazing, though I am hardly suprised. Once the digital
camera becomes within the reach of the average picture taking man
in the street, it will leave all else behind. Look what has
happened to DVD's they are apparently the fastest growing piece of
technology ever in terms of sales, presumably this is because the
price has come down to a point where they are more attractive to
buy the machines.

And yet, their development is far from over. Already recordable DVD
machine are on the market, but as yet they are too expensive. Give
them a year or two and we will all have one.

So this rather begs the question as to when the best time is to
jump in and get the first digital camera? We constantly hear people
say they are waiting till they match the quality of film etc. etc.
But personally I feel that the time is here now, and it only needs
the prices to come down to make sales shoot up.

The same thing was ofen said about the PC, they were/are constantly
developing and so what we bought now was soon going to be obsolete.
Of course if you did not buy for this reason you would end up never
buying. I am still using a P11 300mhz PC that is well obsolete, but
it still does most things I need it to do, and will continue to do
so unless I suddenly developed a liking for playing games or doing
digital video work. Surely the same principles apply to purchasing
a Digicam, the quality is here now, so unless you jump in soon you
are simply missing out on all the advantages the system offers the
photographer now.

These are just my thoughts on the issue you understand, and you may
think I'm being a bore, but it certainly makes you think about how
the photography market is going to develop (whoops there we go
again!) over the next few years.

--
Steve Anstey

Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks to digital photogrpahy is output. Despite what printer manufacturers tell you about "photo quality prints", the truth is that those prints simply are not archival. The inks (dyes) used in those printers will fade over a short period of time. Then again...you can always simply reprint them if they do fade. I am also aware that there are high end printers, and even devices for generating an actual negative which can be used to print an actual photographic print, but this devices are not within the reach of your average user.

Don't get my wrong...Digital imaging IS the wave of the future, and the image quality is constantly improving. I happen to work for a newspaper in the prepress department & use digital images on a daily basis. I even do photography (part time) and own a very nice digital camera, but I know that , at present, the images are mainly suitable only for web pages and print publication. Digital photography is the perfect medium for publication, since the images have to be broken down into dots in order to print on any printing press anyway. I still prefer to use a conventional camera and would use my digital cam primarily as nothing more than an "electronic Poloroid" for testing lighting during a photo shoot.

 

[Peter Brogden]

While digital is clearly the future, it has a way to go to match film for price and convenience. The fastest growth area (excluding digital) is in single use cameras - and you can't get much more convenient than that!

What people want is an easy life - single use cameras, and one hour minilabs give them just that. With digital, you need a computer (expensive) plus the camera (more expense) plus the portable storage (still more expense). Right now digital is for professionals and enthusiasts only. i.e. readers of dpreview. Until the cost and convenience of digital is significantly improved film is safe (unless Hollywood develops digital projectors - then watch out).

For my money, the transistion will come when mobile broadband internet is available at low cost - I wonder when that will happen?

Peter

So in the space of less than five years it looks as though it won't
be long before it is assigned to that ever increasing camera
graveyard in the sky.

Minolta has just announced they are stopping production and
development of the APS camera system.

Now Minolta are one of the 'big four' camera manufacturers and were
one of the five that developed the APS system. If they pull out
then maybe it won't be long before the others follow suit.

APS of course was a system brought out in 1996 and promised to
rejuvenate the photography market. So what is the problem?

Yes your ahead of me DIGITAL. I find the way in which things have
developed (excuse the pun) in the camera market over recent years
absolutely amazing, though I am hardly suprised. Once the digital
camera becomes within the reach of the average picture taking man
in the street, it will leave all else behind. Look what has
happened to DVD's they are apparently the fastest growing piece of
technology ever in terms of sales, presumably this is because the
price has come down to a point where they are more attractive to
buy the machines.

And yet, their development is far from over. Already recordable DVD
machine are on the market, but as yet they are too expensive. Give
them a year or two and we will all have one.

So this rather begs the question as to when the best time is to
jump in and get the first digital camera? We constantly hear people
say they are waiting till they match the quality of film etc. etc.
But personally I feel that the time is here now, and it only needs
the prices to come down to make sales shoot up.

The same thing was ofen said about the PC, they were/are constantly
developing and so what we bought now was soon going to be obsolete.
Of course if you did not buy for this reason you would end up never
buying. I am still using a P11 300mhz PC that is well obsolete, but
it still does most things I need it to do, and will continue to do
so unless I suddenly developed a liking for playing games or doing
digital video work. Surely the same principles apply to purchasing
a Digicam, the quality is here now, so unless you jump in soon you
are simply missing out on all the advantages the system offers the
photographer now.

These are just my thoughts on the issue you understand, and you may
think I'm being a bore, but it certainly makes you think about how
the photography market is going to develop (whoops there we go
again!) over the next few years.

--
Steve Anstey

Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks to digital photogrpahy is
output. Despite what printer manufacturers tell you about "photo
quality prints", the truth is that those prints simply are not
archival. The inks (dyes) used in those printers will fade over a
short period of time. Then again...you can always simply reprint
them if they do fade. I am also aware that there are high end
printers, and even devices for generating an actual negative which
can be used to print an actual photographic print, but this devices
are not within the reach of your average user.
Don't get my wrong...Digital imaging IS the wave of the future, and
the image quality is constantly improving. I happen to work for a
newspaper in the prepress department & use digital images on a
daily basis. I even do photography (part time) and own a very nice
digital camera, but I know that , at present, the images are mainly
suitable only for web pages and print publication. Digital
photography is the perfect medium for publication, since the images
have to be broken down into dots in order to print on any printing
press anyway. I still prefer to use a conventional camera and would
use my digital cam primarily as nothing more than an "electronic
Poloroid" for testing lighting during a photo shoot.

 

[Rodger Carter]

I bought my first digicam in 1998 and consider myself to be a "Johnny -come-lately." Those waiting on the sidelines probably haven't bought their first CD player yet either (camcorder?).

Rodger

 

[Mike Lewis]

You know I still have 16 Rolls of film I need to process..I just don't feel like doing it after I got my digital camera....Plus I don't feel like paying for it all...

The APS was nothing but a scam to let us buy less film at higher
prices. Canon and Olympus (mju, eg.) have already showed that you
can make very compact and easy to use cameras for 35mm. And I see
no reason why you couldn't package the 35mm film in a APS-like
system. (Easy to load canister, the index prints, etc...). The
digital will take the APS place in 2-3 years, leaving the 35mm and
larger film for the professonals. But even there the film is being
challenged, like the Kodak 16Mpx back for the medium cameras.
The main threshold is the price, but the price for a
point-and-shoot is still quite above the film version. The cheapest
one with zoom I can find here is the Epson PhotoPC @ USD 350, I
guess I could find similar 35mm/APS camera for maybe USD 100. My
OM-2 is collecting dust, it just isn't worth the hassle of
finishing the film, develop it, and look at the photos on small
postcards, my photos just look so much better on my relative small
17" monitor. And they are available the same day.
But I'm ranting...

J.

--
E-1OORS, S1OO, 0M-2

--Mike L. http://www.pbase.com/ferrari355/galleries