Gordon Moat wrote:

Plus, of course, it (Rollei AF) is not the only option beckoning those
people who do still have money to spend...

Which seems like thriving in a niche market could be an answer. The
problem
then becomes what volume of sales will sustain a niche? Large format is
already
a niche market, yet there is still diversity, just as an example.

LF is dead already. It's just that those corpses are pretty well balmed. ;-)
MF has been a niche market since way back when. The trouble isn't supplying
a niche market. The trouble is that people occupying that niche are leaving.
And that hurts.

Take Hasselblad: a small company, yet doing very well selling in numbers
that are absolutely nothing compared to, say, Nikon.
Recently, they decided they could no longer survive without the (financial)
support of some large company.
How long will that work should the MF market not recover from the current
dip?

Rollei have put all their eggs in one basket: new customers would come, and
sales go up again, if only they could offer modern AF technology.
Now they *do* offer AF technology. And? Right: nothing!

The Japanese companies are a bit larger, and perhaps operate differently
too. But how long can you not sell a product and keep up the pretence things
are going well, even when the company's live does not depend on it?

A niche is fine, as long as it is not empty.

The only retro photography trend I see, and mostly southern California
(and
some other cites in the US), is more younger people buying used film
cameras.
These could be considered accessories to match trendy retro style clothing
(especially anything with "That 70's" look), though the funny thing is
that
many of these used camera buyers actually use their gear. While they may
not
fit into enthusiast, nor consumer models, many of them like the aspect of
controlling the camera, rather than the automation controlling them. This
is
the "technology backlash" reaction to too much technology in everyday
life.
Retro is popular because it reminds one of simpler times, even though that
memory is created in those that did not live in those times.

That trend has not been seen this side of the pond. I wonder if it will
last.

If anything, traditional brands most associated with "the good old days"
of
photography are in danger of becoming extinct. The only true, and
strong,
trend in photography today is that digi-thingy.

True, based on volume sales, or even number of articles. Of course, the
reality
is about as true as the "paperless office". I think wireless imaging will
soon
become the next big thing, and the future volume leader of "photography"
(if
you can still call that photography).

The paperless office we were promised has not materialized, no. But where
are those typewriters and blue paper?
You can't deny a trend moving us in one direction becuase some augurs in the
past predicted we would have green wallpaper and we find we have gray
wallpaper when we finally get to where this ternd was taking us.

At the moment, the reality is that consumers want convenience (when did they
ever not want that?) and fun. And that currently means digital. And not just
in photography.
And yes, wireless imaging may well be the next thing. "Blue tooth" transfer
of images between camera and storage device is possible even today. So why
not.

Whether it is something i like or not, whether i would part with my
beloved
MF equipment or not gladly is another matter. But that's the reality:
we,
the customers, drive the market. And we drive it towards digital. And
that
drive results in digital becoming better and affordable too. And at the
same
time it is driving MF towards its end.

So again, why should the medium format companies even continue?

What else will they do?

Why not
liquidate now, and get a last profit off their assets?

What value is there in their assets, they being MF manufacturing
infrastructure, when there is no demand for ?

Why did the distributor
for Hasselblad buy the company?

Good example. Hasselblad wanted to go public, i.e. cash in on their
"assets". That went sour when the MF market went downhill.
Doesn't mean that some other company would not want to show off with a
"luxury brand of great repute". They do not need a sensible return ontheir
investment as much as bread and butter investors. There's posing value to
consider...

Why did Tamron buy Bronica? Why does Mamiya
still advertise? Why did Rollei and Contax make autofocus cameras?

Hope springs eternal.
If you're, say, a MF manufacturer, you can only manufacture MF. If you
don't, you're not a MF manufactuer anymore. You'll be nothing. Right?
Leica still make cameras, nor scarfes and handbags, do they not?
So you keep trying, and trying until you really can't anymore. Does not mean
it makes a lot of sense towards the end. Yet Pandora's most cruel gift to
mankind is very powerful.

I think the price point will always be high. Even with Kodak making
digital
backs, any Medium Format direct digital will be high. If you compare to
the
cost of a scanner, around $2000, that is the competition for digital
backs, and
I don't see them ever getting close. With that in mind, they (MF
companies)
should liquidate assets this year.

Well, if they do not get prices down...
I'll come and tell you "told you so" in, oh..., a year.
;-)