so why are some of the big names of film camera production going under? at first glance digital seems to be a large culprit, but digital's main market seems to be nothing more than point and shoot cameras. DSLR's are only recently becoming viable resources for working photographers, both due to prices becoming more reasonable and picture quality improving. But why are some companies calling it quits? i don't think the competition of digital was the only reason these companies are leaving the market. I think the main reason these companies could not sustain their production is rather simple; they made quality products. The reason we were drawn to their products in the beginning was the solid construction, with durable materials. The cameras were made with a sense of quality and longevity that beat the same companies out of selling replacement cameras every few years. The working life of the camera is longer than the period of the owner's interest. Personally, I use my father's 25+ year old handed-down slr and a spotmatic thats much older than that. The companies created such a large amount of versatile, long-lasting cameras that are still very available that there is no sufficient need for new film cameras. Digital cameras are winning over the market because they don't last nearly as long, but since it is the market norm, people still buy. They aren't made as solid. if i took a new dslr in one hand, and my metal slr in the other, and bang them together until pieces fly, i think my slr would come out unscathed. what do you think?