My previous perception which I think is common, is that due to the amount they made from non-digital, they ignored digital until it was too late.
My revised perception after listening is that Kodak was right there at the cutting edge (and has the cameras and patents to prove it). Problem was how the company was structured. Pretty much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
They had a 'chemical' photography division that did amazingly as they opened up photography to consumers. They created a digital division as they saw the way the market was heading. Problem was the fighting between the two divisions.
I thought about going back to film in order to get back into the hobby "cheaply", but quickly learned it was not going to be cheap at all and not worth the drawbacks even then. Prices are on the rise in all regards. Cameras and glass are "vintage" rather than just old, and priced accordingly. Film and processing costs are stupid high now, not on every corner like before, and not to mention the inability to process, learn, and deal with things easily at home like with digital. It's obviously supply and demand, but it's strange to have witnessed the extreme flip flop that occurred in the industry. As far as I know only Nikon (one model) and Leica (one model) are making non medium format film cameras anymore and they are both very expensive. I wonder what the next big leap/flip flop will be.
If you want to get back into the hobby cheaply, go for one of the prosumer kits, like the Nikon 3xxx/5xxx/7xxx series, or whatever in the Canon line is comparable. (I'm heavily invested in the Nikon F system, and as a hobbyist can't justify investing in Canon as well, so I don't really know anything about their lines.)
Film has become extremely niche in the last decade, even among the niche that is interchangeable-lens-camera hobby photography. As you've seen, that makes it expensive.
That said, if you're looking to get back to film specifically as opposed to photography in general, you can find good used midrange 35mm bodies without too much trouble. You'll still pay through the nose for film and developing services, and probably also for glass since that holds its value in a way 35mm SLR bodies don't, but you can at least avoid the $2600 bite of a brand-new F6.
I had no desire to live with the limits of film again, I just thought it might be a cheap workaround. Ends up not being the case. I really cannot justify spending at all right now but I have looked at the prosumer stuff you mentioned. While they are good for the new cost there are a lot of compromises and each iteration seems to remove some obvious feature like a remote port or ISO button etc as they keep shoving old guts into new bodies and optimizing production costs. The math always works out cheaper to get used stuff with more appropriate specs when/if I can afford to do anything at all. Rather than spend twice on a kit then upgrading, it's more sensible to buy once and keep that stuff as long as it is physically possible to maintain it. My hopefully "buy it for life" rational desire is a Canon 6D Mark I, a fast everyday zoom, and a really fast prime for the stars. Some day.
Give it a couple of years. As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, mirrorless is already starting to displace mid- to mid-high-range DSLRs into the used market, and by then it should be displacing the high-end stuff too.
(And I feel you about the UI issues. Part of the reason I switched from a D5300 to a D500 was because the prosumer bodies are really designed to be shot in program auto, and you just don't have enough direct control of basic parameters - you need to be in the 7xxx range even to have an aperture dial! I'm waiting for D850s to start hitting the used market in numbers for precisely that reason - 45MP full-frame is just about ideal for the macro work I do, despite the relative DoF loss, and the UI commonality between that and the D500 means I won't have to worry about missing the perfect shot of a wasp or whatever because my hands got confused about how to operate the camera.)
A two-generation-old DSLR is still a really, really good camera and will still absolutely trounce the performance of any reasonably fast 35mm film. Sigma and Tamron are now making affordable glass that goes toe-to-toe with Canon L; there are a lot of good, cheap DSLR lenses hitting the used market right now thanks to the move to mirrorless.
If you can avoid getting swept up with the idea that you need the latest and greatest, it's a really great time to get back into photography. eBay is full of fantastic kit at yard sale prices.
Yeah a 6D Mark I (7yo model) would cover anything I am and am likely to be interested in. It's popular in the astrophotography world for it's superb low light performance out of the box. It's on the "better days" shopping list. Hoping EF L glass fades in price as well as people gravitate to R mount as options increase, and don't want to bother with converters.
Right now honestly zero, unless I came across the deal of a lifetime that I believed I could justify responsibly long term. The film idea was fleeting and not realistic. If it becomes possible I am hoping to get a used full frame body with a good low light capability, like a 6d and a couple good lenses. A shutter replacement would be a likely need one day but can be found for a reasonable cost. But IQ and features would be enough. If the rest of the bits kept working/could be cheaply serviced, it could feasibly last me the rest of my life for my needs and wants despite whatever else comes along.
My previous perception which I think is common, is that due to the amount they made from non-digital, they ignored digital until it was too late.
My revised perception after listening is that Kodak was right there at the cutting edge (and has the cameras and patents to prove it). Problem was how the company was structured. Pretty much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
They had a 'chemical' photography division that did amazingly as they opened up photography to consumers. They created a digital division as they saw the way the market was heading. Problem was the fighting between the two divisions.