minimum life expectancy.
regards,
Anthony FarrBut it might not be much of a life. Forcing the supply of film doesn't mean it will be of the type and quality you want. Either quality, selecton, or price will give and I expect dramatically. When the profits are gone, so is the product as it was then known -- for all practical purposes and the volume dependant margin enviroment that film has developed into is IMHO not llikely to lanquish long at least with any great breadth of selection with even moderate declines in volume.
Otis Wright
Anthony Farr wrote:
Not at all, Bob.
The specialist camera makers can shelter under the umbrella of the film and camera manufacturers. So long as Kodak and Fuji sell film cameras the ~hardware only~ manufacturers can rest assured that film will be available for the required period.
But on the day that no film manufacturer also sells a film camera there will be much rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic. I predict that no company would risk the legal ramifications of selling a film camera if Kodak and Fuji also withdraw from film camera sales.
Like I said, while Kodak and Fuji sell film ~cameras~, film has ten years minimum life expectancy.
regards, Anthony Farr
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
that would not be a very clever argument. It would imply that the camera makers such as Pentax also had to be film makers. Or that kitchen equipment makers also had to be food retailers; printer manufacturers would have to be paper makers. Law-makers would have to be Fagins. Cup makers would have to guarantee a water supply.
-- Cheers, Bob
