Digital will be the end of Leica..

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Hi,

I read some really bad articles about leica future, I just wondering if Leica can disappear with they really not sell enought ? Can they really be out of the market like that ?

-- Ben (ben_huna@free.fr), May 24, 2002

Answers

It seems to me that more than a few years ago, th advent of polaroid signaled the end of regular photography as we know it. The last time I looked, Polaroid was in the midst of bankruptcy. The digital craze(and that is what it is currently), seems to be peaking. There might be a bit more merging of the two practices, but for the forseeable future, both branches of Photography will move ahead side by side.(One person,s opinion).

-- Ned Learned (ned@kajabbi.com), May 24, 2002.

Consider the large base of installed 35mm gear. Not everbody who owns a 35mm camera now is gonna 'go digital' in the future. There will be plenty demand for 35mm film in decades to come.

As for Leica, it could disappear in the future. The only thing we can do is to keep buying Leica gear and make the company financially healthy again. I just made my contribution, I bought the Leica SF20 flash.

-- Bert Keuken (treb@operamail.com), May 24, 2002.


On the Leica site, there's sure a lot of bitching going on about the delayed digital camera, and problems with its' Panasonic twin. Is it possible such a wonderful company as Leica could fall on hard times? I don't know, perhaps someone at Polaroid could elaborate. Leica WILL go under if all the minimalist on this site convert everone to their "less is more" POV. But I can assure you they won't go bankrupt because of me. With the arrival yesterday of a 4X4,16 meg ( 94 meg/12bit file) UNTEATHERED Kodak ProBack for my Contax 645, I am just about all digital in every format...EXCEPT for my Leicas! Ironically, my digital cameras just earned me enough to order the 24/2.8 ASPH. I've been drooling over. To me Leica IS digital: M camera, Tri-X, 4000dpi scanner. The images stand up to, or beat, anything out there. IMHO Leica should've kept the partnership with Fuji and added a real Leica lens to Fuji's excellent imaging technology. Now where's that phone # for my Leica pusher? Got to help save Leica for future generations!

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 24, 2002.

No company is immune from economics and pressures of the marketplace. Even long established firms have found themselves on the rocks of misfortune.

My own experience buying a current top-prosumer digicam is that it has, for the most part, supplanted my 35mm film usage. When I really want quality and tonality, i find myself reaching for medium format, not 35mm. Only rarely does the additional capability of film's responsiveness and low light versatility require me to shoot small-format film anymore, other than purely for the fun of it.

If Leica cannot respond to the changes which are swirling around them quickly and appropriately, they could well go into the dark, not to return. That would be a sad day.

"For everything there is a season" as the old saying goes. We have yet to see whether the season of Leica's pre-eminent film cameras has run its course as yet.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), May 24, 2002.


"The report of my demise was greatly exaggerated."

-- Mark Twain

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 24, 2002.



Leica doesnt just make cameras of course. Thier Microscopy Division does very well. Here in Australia the cameras are imported by a very poor serviced agent but for Microscopes its run by the Company Leica Australia. Thier service is very very good.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.

"Leica doesnt just make cameras of course. Thier Microscopy Division does very well."

Different companies. Have been for years.

-- George (davecasman@yahoo.com), May 24, 2002.


Leica is of course in the business of selling *new* cameras, so let's put aside for the moment the second-hand market. To purchase a *new* Leica camera system requires a great deal of money. There is only a certain demographic that can and will fork over that much cash for cameras which are technologically a decade or several behind, based on their esoteric perceived value...and Leica knows that demographic well. It is, however, an aging one, as any glance at an LHSA meeting will confirm. Leica it seems is dabbling in digital on a buy-in-and- badge basis, but it looks like they're counting on milking their niche market as dry as possible for as long as possible, maxing out existing tooling and committing as little R&D as possible.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 24, 2002.

Leica have always not sold 'enough' cameras, but their sales esp in the rangefinder sept have really picked up in recent years. But digital will never kill of chemical photography. This medium will fall into the same category as other so called 'replaced' technologies such as Mechanical watches, Vinyl records and hell even leather soled shoes! Traditional things live on for ever!

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 24, 2002.

the same was said about painting when first photographic process appeard, as long as there are people interested in film they will make it. I pray.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.


Digital appeals to those who TAKE pictures, as opposed to those of us who MAKE photographs. There are very few cameras that are able to make a photograph as well as the Leica M, but there are just scads of cameras able to take a better pictures. Only a small percentage of those on this forum seem interested in making photographs. "Mommy, I see pictures." Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

-- Glenn Travis, RA (leciaddict@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.

"Digital appeals to those who TAKE pictures, as opposed to those of us who MAKE photographs."

I've heard the make/take distinction so often but I really have no idea what it means. Sounds like a Minor Whiteism to me.

I just click snaps. When it looks good in the finder my finger twitches and that's that.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 24, 2002.


I have to agree with Glen: For many subjects it's just easier to make the image look right before you snap via the direct-view of the M's VF... Especially when compared to the LCD display of a digital!

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 24, 2002.


Glenn,

I agree with Robert. Could you tell me how you made that pic over taking it?

Thanks,

-- rav (ravinder_walia@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.


I would classify a "Picture" as a representation of reality, and a "Photograph" as a representation of how you see reality. I am not talking about the "decisive moment," but about the approach. Do you mean to say that for your subjects you have no connection? That you don't try to represent their humanity for us to see no matter what their circumstances? That your "snap click" of your subject isn't done with caring, feeling, love, aprreciation of who they are and what they mean to you? How can you call yourself human, and yet only see your subjects as a snapshoot, maybe a a stepping stone to a better, higher paying job? It's pretty obvious to me, that you're held in high regard by many of your subjects, and yet to you it's only another snap? If I see one more photo of a starving third world person and their fucking cow, I'm going to puke! I thought you were above that. Obviouly, by your own words you're not.

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.


thanks for reminding me that only a leica can make pictures; i knew there was some reason i'd spent all that dough. anyway, as to the original poster's question, two points: (1) in my view, it is only a matter of time until leica gets scooped up by tamron, cosina, etc., along the same lines as contax and voigtlander (see a trend there). the value of the name is way too great to let it pass away. if this happens, we can only hope that the new parent will support all the stepchildren. the advent of the m7, with its electro-innards makes this more possible. (2) as for the demise of film, i say look to the third world. sadly, for decades to come there will not be an adequate infrastructure in many countries to support widespread use of digital cameras. in these places, there will still be a demand for film. there certainly will be a contraction of variety (already begun to happen), but film will still be available. needless to say, there will also be demand for film (although shrinking every year) in first world countries from the owners of the stimated 6.5 billion film-based cameras in circulation.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 24, 2002.

No offense, Glenn, but I feel your response to Rob was unnecessarily harsh. I disagree with Rob about many things, but mostly not about photography.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 24, 2002.

Have to agree with Glenn on this one. I do a lot of what I call "fine art portraits", both for exhibiton purposes as well as commission work. My usual method of photographing someone (they usually contact me via my website) is to sit down with them at least twice over coffee, shoot the breeze (so to speak) so I can get an appreication (to some degree) of where they come from, so to speak, and for them to be at ease with me. I then ask them to think about how they want themselves portrayed for a week or so before we set a shooting day. In my mind I MAKE photographic portraits. A huge difference from the average portrait photographer who answers the phone, sets a day and photographs the person 10 minutes after meeting them. They are TAKING a picture. I could probably do this digitally, but my whole working method meshes well with conventional imaging.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 24, 2002.

roger, you beat me to it.

1) Leica will hardly go away, but is at great risk of getting acquired either by a Japanese massmaker, or by a luxury group like Vendome, LVHM etc.

2) film is not likely to disapear anytime soon

3) taking pictures/making photographs... i make no illusions of being an artist. photography makes me happy, that about sums it up.

cheers,

pat

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), May 24, 2002.


Glenn

You are becoming a bit of a broken record. Your pianist was much better in my opinion. As some of us say all the time, you have absolutely no idea what pictures most of us take or do not take, so assumptions as to that are completely unwarranted. I think your make/take analoogy is not all that useful. Some of the greatest shots are snapshots or taken without any planning. Any generalisations about what good photography is will be undermined by countless counter examples. I find your endless sniping on "I am the only photographer on this forum" theme rather tiresome - how about giving it a rest or challenge Jeff Spirer to a duel to sort it out once and for all?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.


Dear Glenn Travis, RA,

I've read your thesis and your arrogant attack on other photographers. Now, could you please describe, precisely, to the assembled readers here, how your orchestra picture COULD NOT have been made with a digital camera?

A camera (and its installed recording medium) is a device for recording the light reflected off surfaces. While there are quality differences in the "capture" afforded by film and an electronic CCD, both devices are simply recording reflected light.

What do recording media have to do with "making" or "taking" photographs?

And what's with the attitude?

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), May 24, 2002.


If all anyone is interested in is a technical representation of reality, then virtually ANY camera one could mention is far, far better at this than a Leica, and particually a Leica RF. As for the Photo I included in my post, you're right, any number of people with any number of cameras could have taken a far, far, better picture than I did. As for Rob, I love him like a brother. But he has choosen his own path, and his talent no longer belongs to his alone. It belongs to all of us. When we feel he is out of line, we owe it to him to say that which is in our hearts. But in the end Rob has to choose whether he becomes one of those Leica Legends or just another poporazzi.

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.

I don't know how much digital will eat into the regular film camera market, but I don't think film will disappear anytime soon. As far as Leica is concerned they have other divisions besides their film cameras: eg., Leica Geosystems (scientific products for surveying etc.), the microscope division, the binocular division, slide projectors (this one does depend upon film being available). So they are not solely dependent on film cameras.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 24, 2002.

Some of you good people are bit behind the times when it comes to digital cameras and backs. There is no comparison between the investment being made toward the advancement of digital receptors and that being allocated to film. Just do the math. So, exactly what is wrong with that? Digital verses film???? Who cares what captures the image? It's the image that counts. I don't want to go back to glass plates and 2 minute exposures either. (except maybe for the nostalgic fun of it.) I decided to invest in the best glass over cameras long ago. That investment paid off as digital came on line and I already had the best lenses. Besides, I'm not worried about the demise of film. I'll be long dead by then. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy my delicious little Leica cameras and their yummy lenses just as much as ever. Worrying about the death of film only lessens that joy. Live for now.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 24, 2002.

Keith; Glen's photo may or may not be also shot with a digital camera..How dark was the scene?......

Place my Noctilux and asa 800 to asa 3200 film in my Leica M3; and world beyond todays digital is there for me.......The digital cameras I use eat batteries and dont always focus were I want them.....Plus the flash likes to go off at the wrong times....Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 24, 2002.

Boy there's nothing like a great "digital verses film" flame-war. Will the film market stay the same,certaintly not, will the majority of "snapshooting" be done with digital in the near future, probably, will digital wipe film off the face of the earth, I don't think so. Just as photgraphy didn't take the place of painting and color film didn't destroy BW film, digital certaintly has and will change the way we "image", but I don't think that is will or should completely replace film. Digital is a great emerging media, which for some kinds of shooting is superior to film right now, when I did newspaper work I loved shooting digital, my deadlines could be longer, I didn't have to spend hours in the darkroom etc. But I still could tell the difference between my film and digital shots in the paper. I think if Leica was savy about it, they could have greater success targeting a niche market concerned more with the subtle image qualities than trying to compete with a mass market digital "revolution". I mean Leica has never been very successfull trying to compete head to head with Nikon and Canon. They don't offer that kind of catch all product. If Leica is going to come out with a digital camera it should be a "10 megapixel digital M8" that takes all of the leica M lenses and screwmounts with adapters and nothing less. They should stop messing around with the best digital tech that 1998 has to offer:) and really figure out a way to keep all this great glass going into the future(if they want to do digital), while at the same time keeping the film stuff robust. Anyway shoot on the media that best suits the kind of photography that you do. All these different kinds of medias is what makes photography great right. All these different products and combinations is what allows us to be unique in our imaging. I say find out what works for you and stop playing the field :)

-- Jason Eitelbach (JEitelbach@aol.com), May 24, 2002.

One more time with feeling. My Leica IS digital: M camera, Tri-X, 4000dpi scanner. Claiming that your digital camera can't do this or that, is old news. It was obsolete when you left the camera shop where you bought it. A press-reporters' experience with digital cameras is valid for about 3-6 months. What cost $5,000. last year, costs half that now. This isn't happening on "Leica Time" it's a "Rocket Sled" doubling its speed every year. Maybe someone will adapt a digital box to take Leica glass. Leica should've hooked up with the Fovan (sp?) folks. Now that would've been something. Instead the Fovan sensor is in a Sigma, and Leica hooked up with a paperweight manufacturer.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 24, 2002.

Glenn:

1. Nice picture.

2. Leica vs. Not Leica is only one dichotomy that could be advanced. Was the Elmar the only right lens for the job? I'd have brought my Summilux. Sensia 200? I'd have brought Provia 400. Or Kodachrome 200?

And you'd have still gotten the shot if you'd used a Lux or Cron, or Provia. You couldn't have done it with digital, though.

I think digital vs. film is in a different arena than take/make.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 24, 2002.


i don't agree with Glenn with his views about users of digital and non-digital cameras. but i can't agree more about his opinion on images of third-world kids with their f*cking cows...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.

You know, Glenn, it really doesn't matter what my attitude is when taking pictures. I could be misting up my glasses and the viewfinder with tears as I look at all those poor poor people, or I could be grinning with delight at the thought of how good a picture of a leper will look on-line. All that counts is the picture, whether it's any good or not, and the only thing that determines that is the precise moment my finger squashes down on the shutter release, the exposure (usually underexposed, as we know) and the direction the camera is pointed in. Click. And that is what I concentrate on when snapping, not the heft and balance or silky feel of the camera, or my precious emotions about other people's lives. All that stuff just has to disappear, because photography is a purely visual thing which has nothing to do with anything else than how good the picture is visually. If you let other things get in the way, then the pictures will suffer. None of that stuff is important when you're taking pictures. And I think the digital/film divide is equally inconsequential, within the limitations of either medium, of course.

Do I take or make pictures? I don't know and I don't care, the distinction means nothing to me and I don't believe it ever meant more to Weston, White and the others than a way to feel more worthy than tourist snapshooters. In my case, I know that I'm always a tourist in other people's lives when taking pictures, and nothing will ever change that. I just try to do as good a job of my tourism as I can.

Finally, I don't believe there's a single cow in any of my pictures.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 25, 2002.


BTW, Glenn, I suspect that that picture could have been done just as well if not better in digital; you're using a slow lens and the digital could also have done something about the colour cast.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 25, 2002.

Cameras don't make/take pictures. Photogaphers make/take pictures.

Ultimately it doesn't make much difference if the capture is digital or film.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), May 25, 2002.


Heard this before: digital will make paper go away-- "paperless office"

typewriter will be the end of pen

car will be the end of bicycle

car will be end of locomotive

airplane will be the end of ocean liner Television will be the end of radio broadcast ..........................

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 25, 2002.


hydrogen bomb will be the end of the world

Ridiculous!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 25, 2002.


Rob, didn't you once show us an underexposed picture of a cow next to a truck? Maybe my memory is failing me.

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), May 25, 2002.

In Engineering; Autocad is embraced to save time and paper.. Our companies sales of paper is at an all time high; we have been around since 1954.....In the old days draftsmen got it right with manual drafting and only copies were made of good drawings... Today with cad huge amounts of plots are made as check drawings....They do not like to check drawings on the monitor..it is damn tuff to do...so they plot out drawings as check drawings; and check these.. it is quicker to check these plotted out check drawings....

So we order 1 ton of paper per week to supply the new system....This is progress...Cad is better in most ways.....Several of our customers do all their work by hand.. They are hardcore designers and builders... They order 500 sheets of custom title block 30x42 vellum and draw their custom house plans that look grand.....They are to scale... the concept of scale is an afterthought in alot of cad drawings...

Recently we printed out a goverment cad job supplied in pdf form.. each of the 62 drawings were to a bastard scale... we had to plot each one out and measure each one.. Then we ratioed each drawing to force the scale to be correct....There were about 20 different scales used on the project; both english and metric too!...1/3 of the drawings had no dimensions; we had to compare other drawings....The 30x42 drawings had to be opened in gray scale; they had greyscale photos also in parts of the drawings..Some of the text was only 1/642 inch high...The archtects on that job should be shot for using text that small; it only drives the price of printing up...To have to open a 30x42 drawing up at 600 dpi grey scale is absurd....A 30x42 greyscale file at 600dpi is 433 megabytes..One needs a couple of GIG of ram to open files like this fast.. Each PDF drawing took 22 to 30 minutes to open and convert to a PCX or TIFF format for our Giant bond printer... I used two 1.1 Ghz machines with 512Meg ram..The 512 Meg Ram is the max the hardware will allow on these boxes.... It took 2 1/2 days to open; print; measure the scale; and reprint the correct set......

What I needed to do the job was a low cost 4 Ghz computer with 2.0 Gigs of ram!

Then it only took 2 hours to make 5 sets of blueline copies of the vellums we plotted..; using a 30 year old Dietzgen blueline machine

The government sends out CD's to save time and paper..The contactors demand that their drawings be to scale...Thus the building's cost will be more; because the cost of printing bastard files must be pasted on........Plus smaller contractors cannot afford the printing cost; they end up not bidding........On one local job no one even bid on it......Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 25, 2002.

The smallest text size use was 1/64 inch high = 0.0156 inch =approx 0.4mm...; it was important text required for the drawings..Since the Architect used a fancy font; we had to open the drawings at 600dpi; at 500 or 400 it was not clear enough....this is a good example of technology run incorrectly.....When I was at Burroughs Corporatation decades ago; we had hard and fast standards for MINUMUM type size on Engineering drawings..This was for good printing; readabliity; and microfilming....today alot of cad drawings are crap....Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 25, 2002.

Hajj, yes but the cow was so underexposed it was invisible, I don't know if that cownts.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 25, 2002.

APS Poloriod was the end for Lieca Photographers where have you been,we are now just ghosts.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 25, 2002.

Leica...learn to spell.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 25, 2002.

Folks:

I will ask the same question one more time. No on ever answers it; and I suppose no one will.

Leitz makes great lenses, but the M bodies aren't that good, now-a-days. What makes you think that they will survive? I don't think that they will. This has to do with business; not with the flight of the valkeryja.

Just wondered. I give them 5 years at most. Film will be here for some time. Leitz bodies wont. Just my HO.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 25, 2002.


What makes you think that they will survive? I don't think that they will. This has to do with business; not with the flight of the valkeryja

They have survived for 50 years the same question was asked 25 years ago.Good photographers(as all craftsmen)will pay a premium for a quality crafted product.We do not question whether Rolex will survive.Quality is quality and we all want it if we can afford and tat is what Leica is all about.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 25, 2002.


Art; why are Leica M bodies no good now-a-days? Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 25, 2002.

I guess Glenn is right. In "make", it is an "I" and "you" caring relationship. "Take", it means I take something from you. Humanity, humanity, humanity.

Also, make means trying to put everything together. Take means getting a piece from the whole. So make is adding, take is substracting.

-- (yongfei.lin@sabre.com), May 25, 2002.


Art writes:

>> Folks: I will ask the same question one more time. No on ever answers it; and I suppose no one will.

Leitz makes great lenses, but the M bodies aren't that good, now-a- days. What makes you think that they will survive? I don't think that they will. This has to do with business; not with the flight of the valkeryja. Just wondered. I give them 5 years at most. Film will be here for some time. Leitz bodies wont. Just my HO. <<

Five years is something I don’t feel appropriate to describe the phenomenon… Nobody can forecast exactly when digital imagery will equal in capabilities the silver based one in picture taking and be available at an affordable price to the general public. What I’m convinced of is the silver based film market (particularly the amateur market which is by far the widest one) will decline fast and will be violently pushed to do so… So sometimes in the future, the silver based film will be no more produced (just as wet collodion and glass plates)… Comparative with Rollex mechanical watches are totally irrelevant as these watches do not need anything (but some maintenance) to work properly. A classical camera needs film to be operated.

I’m sure a Leica M will properly work far long after the last silver halide film roll will be produced. But it won’t produce an image anymore. So it will be useless.

To say the M cameras aren’t that good these days is something though I don’t fully agree with. They are certainly less well built than in the seventies or earlier due to the use of some cheap material on sensitive parts (“horror stories” like the one related to rewind cranks and battery cover are far from unknown). But they essentially work perfectly as ever.

The real point is despite the production M7 the technological gap between M cameras and other 35 mm cameras is steadily widening and some competitors are now entering the market which are not as inferior as some Leica “fundamentalists” are trying to present them. A very important question to raise here is the adaptability of an M camera to an eventual “digitalisation”. And the answer is evident: through keeping the outmoded and awkward loading of M cameras, even in the new M7, it is hard to imagine any adaptation. So I think not a single M camera including the present M7 will survive the general digitalisation of imagery when it will happen (and it will actually happen).

What is able to survive and would be a definite lost if they don’t is the Leica M lenses. And these lenses are perfectly able to be used with a full format high definition digital sensor.

What is (IMHO) lacking to Leica these “interim” days is a true high end rangefinder 35 mm camera embodying what technology has brought to small format cameras and is compatible with both the original concept (so a real rangefinder with no AF) and the original use (mainly spontaneous and snap shooting) of Leica rangefinders, which means the choice between manual spot metering and AE matrix metering instead of a highly centre weighed metering useable in manual or AE lock mode. Both for practical use reasons and marketing reason (as the price of an M7 body is hardly justifiable whatever Leica fundamentalists can say).

This is the worst menace Leica has to face and may be where the company is the most vulnerable.

Will the M system survive until the film disappear? It actually may, due to a hardcore of customers it seems to rely on since the demise of the M5: Mainly collectors-investors and Leica fans. But I wonder if the last category will not progressively dwindle as time passes. Real Leica fans know the real advantages of a SFRF camera and the superiority of Leica lenses but are not blind to what other makes can offer them. Despite all the so-called specialists “articles”, I’m well placed to know as an Hexar RF user, a SFRF comparable (not better nor worse as the shortcomings and advantages of each body equilibrate) to an M7 is already available at less than half the price of an M7 which can use most lenses in the Leica M range with no problems. So, only “fundamentalists” will probably stay exclusive addicts of M bodies. Will this new combination of collectors- investors and “fundamentalists” be sufficient to maintain the M body into production? I don’t know. Moreover, there are more second hand older models on the market sold everyday than new ones I guess to satisfy even these people.

To partially answer your question, I think you have to be aware of the difference between “Leica fundamentalists” who swallow anything to “prove” they are right choosing M bodies whatever the price to pay and whatever their actual requirements and Leica fans (mostly everyday users) who are liable to chose another body if they find it as useful and cheaper, while preserving the essential when they need the actual edge brought by Leica lenses.

As a final consideration, I think the survival of M body until film actually disappears is more conditioned today by two events:

1 – The definitive demonstration of the compatibility of Leica lens with Konica bodies (of which as a user I’m convinced of by practical results)

2 – The eventual issue by a third party of a really high end fair priced state of the art SFRF camera body which will have significant advantages over the present M7 and be sold at an equal or inferior price. Something which can be not so far away but, unfortunately, not at Leica’s but on the blueprints at Konica’s. The Hexar RF body requiring very few modifications to implement the necessary changes. Including a built in future adaptation to digital use.

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 26, 2002.


They have survived for 50 years the same question was asked 25 years ago. The Oldsmobile survived even longer; where is it going.

I, mostly, agree with François P. WEILL. I don't think that digital will kill the Leica bodies. I think that Leica will. The M bodies are totally outdated [and their existance can no longer be justified because of build quality; I sold my M6 because of the finder clutter]. Sure, you can take great photos with them. You folks demonstrate it every day. Then you folks are getting older by the day; there are few in the new generation who will support Leitz bodies.

On a business note [the five year estimate actually and finally got a response] we will soon reach a time when the value of the Leitz name will be greater than their profits. At that point, they will be assimilated.

I agree with François; lets hope that they keep making the lenses.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 26, 2002.


"...we will soon reach a time when the value of the Leitz name will be greater than their profits. At that point, they will be assimilated."

"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." - Locutus, messenger from The Borg, "Star Trek: the Next Generation"

I always thought the N90 and T90 looked like Darth Vader cameras - but maybe they were Borg cameras instead.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 26, 2002.


"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." - Locutus, messenger from The Borg, "Star Trek: the Next Generation" I always thought the N90 and T90 looked like Darth Vader cameras - but maybe they were Borg cameras instead.

Andy. I'm afraid you are using mixed metaphors, Star Trek and Star Wars, in the same response. But let us all hope that Leica will "live long and prosper" and "may the force be with them". And most of all remember that "Having is not the same as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."

Well, it is time for me to be deactivated.

-EMH (Emergency Medical Hologram)

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 26, 2002.


I agree with François, but there's another problem: the dreaded CAT scanning systems. What if they do get installed for carry-on luggage?

We may be able to buy film locally, and be it only because countries where only a minority can afford a western lifestyle still provide some demand. But remember that 95 per cent of all films sold are colour negative films of the 'consumer' variety. If all the choice you have is Agfa Vista, Fuji Superia, Kodak Gold, and three types of B&W film (the latter for $20 per roll), is Leica still attractive?

Leica Microsystems, Leica geodesics,... OK. But their sales can't keep Leica AG (maker of cameras, binoculars, and slide projectors) alive because they are independent companies.

-- -- (Oliver.Schrinner@campus.lmu.de), May 27, 2002.



"There were a number of 35mm still cameras using perforated movie film prior to the Leica"

Tourist Multiple became the first 35mm still camera to be sold commercially (although it had been on the market sometime toward the end of 1913).


-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 27, 2002.




-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 27, 2002.





-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 27, 2002.

Kodak's grand plan in 1996;The Birth of a New Format.

Eastman Kodak Financial Discussion of First Quarter 2002 Results"Worldwide consumer film sales to dealers (including 35mm film, Advantix film, One Time Use Cameras) in the first quarter declined 13%, reflecting 7% volume declines, 5% price/mix declines, and 2% unfavorable exchange. U.S. film sales to dealers decreased 19% , reflecting 15% volume declines and negative 5% price/mix." ; "Full year 2001 restructurings are now expected to reduce total employment by approximately 7,000 jobs worldwide."

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 27, 2002.

Well, I suppose the demise or assimilation of Leica would be a boon for the collector's market.... but seriously, if Leica/Leitz fails, it won't be because of digital, because after 16 Megapixels, the current technology collapses in on itself. See:

medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html

Someone who actually works in Silicon Valley on digital image sensors wrote the above article, and I can't fault the logic.

I've worked with both, and although digital is nice for snaps and newspapers, film still looks better blown up to 8x10 on nice paper. I haven't seen anything from a D1 or a 1D that can rival even el-cheapo film. (My favorite brand.) It's a simple issue of data-- one frame of 35mm holds 50+ megapixels, while the current digital theoretical limit is 16.

Now if Leica/Leitz could find a sensible business plan, well, we'd all be set...

Rich.

-- Rich Fowler (richfowler@mindspring.com), May 27, 2002.


Rick; which link on "Scanning Medium Format Images by Robert Monaghan" is the topic you mention? Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 27, 2002.

Found it! Cool article!

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 27, 2002.

For recent two years, I've been searching for a perfect amateur camera system. Now I am quite sure that there is no single camera system that can serve all purpose. At current technology, as long as Windows coming out a new operating system every 3 years, digital is too expensive. I won't go into details.

Anyway, if I want to shoot concert, formal meetings, hand-hold, low-light, poor Third-world life, etc., there is nothing technically better than Leica M in the 35mm format, nothing that has a better balance between flexibility and quality in all camera systems, Rolleiflex 2.8 included.

Convenience is not an issue. Leica has made itself the way, the Tao, the Logo, the Logos, the Lotus of photography. I know that I need practice to master the photography art. Of course I can hit a "Play" button to listen to music, or I can learn to play a fussy piano. It's my choice, and I really need both.

Can somebody tell me how to "take" a concert picture with a SLR or point-shoot, without being a paparrazi? Digial SLR doesn't help here either because it also has a clicking, vibrating mirror. So maybe a mirror-lockup with tripod? :-)

Lots of people complaining Leica is expensive, but best quality only comes at a price. Harvard tuition is way overpriced in my opinion, and I probably can't tell any difference between a state-university and Harvard graduate; Oh, how about that silly, diamond wedding ring, I can't tell a difference between a glass and a diamond, why those stupid bride won't buy a cheap glass instead? How many of you have a $5000 sofa "system" in house? >$30,000 car in garage? How about a $200,000 home with a $2000 monthly mortage payment? Why don't just buy a $150,000 house and get all Leica, Hasselblad, Linhof, monolights, darkroom, photo studio all under my smaller roof? I'm on the way doing that....

My conclusion: I can skip other luxury items in life to get any camera system I want. And I really need a Leica M in some occasion. Of course, I can let my eye be the camera and my memory be the film. But when I bring a Leica M to a concert, a museum, I know that I'll make a real picture. In those situation, only Leica M will make it....

Again, can somebody tell me how to make a picture technically as good as Leica M's in a classical concert, with a SLR or a digital whatever? In other words, is there any other camera system that is quiter, quicker to respond, more hand-hold friendly, easy, accurate to focus in darkness, and with a >50 years service life?

-- Yongfei Lin (yongfei.lin@sabre.com), May 27, 2002.


I dunno... I come from the opposite point of view. A camera is a tool. It's a box that catches light. In the right hands, it allows the photographer to capture a moment. In the wrong hands... well... eww...

That said, I've seen wonderful pictures taken with a $20 Holga, and some dreadful pictures with a Leica. It isn't the tool, it's the person using the tool that makes the difference.

Most importantly, it's the vision that the person behind the tool has. If that person doesn't have a clear vision, then it doesn't matter how much the lens costs, the picture won't be clear to the viewer. The photo won't communicate, and from my point of view, photography is all about communicating something coherent. (Yes, even art photography is supposed to be coherent on some level.)

The best example I can give is that whenever I'm in a bad mood or just plain distracted, I don't take good photos. Don't know why, but that's the way it is. Technically, they'll be fine, but they will usually lack something. But if I'm relating to my subject, and things are flowing well, then I'll do my best work. *Shrug* I talked it over with a friend of mine who's an art photographer, and she's had similar experiences. We agreed that sometimes we just get lucky (broken clock), but when we're not in the right frame of mind, it just doesn't quiiiite do it.

The main reason I switched to Leica wasn't because of some sort of quest for perfection-- I was just looking for a different way of seeing, and it seems to do the trick to a point, but after that point, it's still all my fault if it doesn't happen.

It's really easy to get hung up on gear-- we see it all the time-- the trick is to get past the gear-lust and get on with taking pictures. Gear-lust just gets in the way of taking pictures. Get your gear, read the fine manual, get out in the sunshine and get on with it.

respectfully submitted,

-- Rich Fowler (richfowler@mindspring.com), May 28, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ