I once told you I am a railway modeler.

When reviewing a lot of threads about Leica M “survivability” came to me an obvious parallel between the Leica M camera and the use of steam by a very famous American railway company: the Norfolk and Western (now blended into the Norfolk Southern).

N&W kept the steam locomotive as its prime motive power well into the fifties when most “Class I” railroads had already dieselised. This company was by the way its own provider of steam motive power and certainly produced the finest steam engine ever. Through a splendid organisation of maintenance it succeeded in securing an rate of availability of these engines equivalent to what the diesels brought to other companies.

Despite these feats, the steam power eventually came to an end, even their.

Why ? Well, one of the main reason was trivial: many accessory devices (accessory but nevertheless absolutely required for a proper operation) which were produced outside their famed Roanoke shops in Virginia (and once sold to any steam locomotive manufacturers) were no more produced as one after the other dedicated steam locomotive makers closed for lack of customers. These patented items were harder and harder to find and more an more costly to obtain…

The demise of steam in the N&W infuriated many railfans in these times but it didn’t stop the clock and by the early 60’s the dies were cast and N&W entered a crash dieselisation program…

Like many railway modelers and railfans, I worship steam locomotives… But not to the point I consider them practically useable in real life (but for some railfan excursions).

What is the link between Leica and N&W history will you ask me?

I think there are at least two links:

The first is when you use a very particular technology which is otherwise scarcely used by others (steam for the N&W, SFRF for Leica) you’d better keep a technological edge on your products which makes them competitive in front of the other(s) more widespread technology(ies). This is the only way to preserve the efficiency and survivability of your choice

Then, if your technology is dependent from some external source, be aware this source won’t dry out if you want it survives: For the N&W these products from outside killed the finest steam locomotives ever and for Leica M’s an eventual (and unavoidable in the future) demise of silver halide film will kill the M series because it will be impossible to replace it by the new digital technology.

Here are the two obvious links and similarities.

But there are also obvious differences:

Rangefinder system is by no mean something which is replaceable by another system bringing the same function like steam was by diesel (or electric) power. It has its own irreplaceable interest. So the rangefinder concept is liable to survive the disappearance of silver halide films. Something which can be a great advantage to Leica M cameras. But it is clear from a user’s point of view these particular advantages should not be overwhelmed by inconveniences which destroy the edge of the original concept.

N&W managed their maintenance system as to obtain a cost and efficiency equal to what the other solution brought… It is hardly the case with an overpriced M camera which after all has an edge over a 35 mm SLR only in a limited range of situation and is otherwise limited by its own concept on others.

Leica M bodies on the contrary to N&W late steamers are far from being on par technically with what is available on the market with other systems and even cannot claim anymore to be the only representative of the original concept anymore.

Finally the M bodies are placed in a situation which is potentially worst than the one of late N&W steam engines:

1 - Because they are not representative of the state of the art technology which can be embodied into their original concept

2 – Because they are no more the only game in town and are liable in a near future to be submitted to an even harsher competition as there is without any doubt a renewal of this concept on the market and still no high end body available

3- Because they are not ready to “pull the train” of digital technology which will in the end totally replace the silver halide film on the contrary to the best steamers of N&W which proved in their time able to pull passenger trains actually FASTER than their diesel replacements were able to do.

IMHO, some of you, my friends leicaphiles, are in fact contributing to the disappearance of your pet camera each time you oppose any attempt to push Leica forward and make it produce at least their first state of the art cameras since the M5. Like you predecessors did when they actually killed the M5 (probably the most interesting user’s M camera ever an their last “state of the art” camera) on the ground it was not exactly similar to the M4 and as elegant as it while arguing against its teething troubles after they had already be cured.

Please help Leica camera AG to awake before it’s too late, tell them to move forward and gain new adepts… Actual users are a more useful customer reserve than collectors or investors.

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 27, 2002

Answers

Perhaps there is reason for hope. Consider the Medium Format market. Much smaller than small-format, there are still manufacturers who think it worthwhile to build digital backs to work with Hasselblads and Mamiyas (and many more obscure and esoteric cameras as well). If you consider Hasselblad, the basic camera design hasn't changed all that much over the years (200 series excepted); it is the lenses that have kept their users with the brand. On another front, there are cottage-industry producers who find it worthwhile to convert old Polaroid rollfilm cameras to new pack film designs, for cameras that are forty years old. Even if Leica isn't the one to make the next leap with an M-mount body, it shouldn't be beyond imagining that another manufacturer will do so. Perhaps the latest liaison with Panasonic will bear other fruit as well.

-- Chris Henry (henryjc@concentric.net), May 27, 2002.

Francois: (Only slightly off topic)

I am certain you know of one of the most vibrant connections to photography with N&W railroad and that is O. Winston Link, who documented the last years of the RR with some of the most dramatic and technically complex photos ever. The photos are a very secure part of americam history and turn up in a large variety of sources. Jusrt about everyone knows his work, or has seen it.

I do not have the link but, a google search turns up many hits. It is a strange story, in that his wife literally stole many of his pictures and negs and just few weeks ago got out of jail having been convicted of theft for that.

Very sad is the fact that OWL died a year or two ago.

There have been several recent books of his work, and I am quite certain any photo gearhead or fan will find his story fascinating.

Funny how the story of that RR has been documented by the opposite of Leicas: LF with very elaborately staged settings. Enjoy.

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.

Richard,

Many many thanks for the tip

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 27, 2002.

I think you're mistaken about the demise of silver halide film. There will always be some who prefer it, and thus there will always be at least a few small companies who find it profitable to cater to this niche market.

In addition, it will be necessary to keep on making film for many years because of all the film cameras presently in existence, and especially, because of all the third world countries which will not be able to convert to digital technology for decades to come.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 27, 2002.

Fran, I got to tell you something. I read through you post twice trying to make sense of it, and quite couldn't. But life is a random game of chance. Sometimes you make your point, and sometimes you roll snake eyes.

Leica has a well established pool of buyers. In fact Leica sales have remained constant over many years indicating that Leica can sell as much product as it can produce, and it seems to produce as much product as it can sell. The easiest way to go into bankruptcy is to forsake a loyal buyer/customer base in hopes of winning a new buyer base away from other competitors, who in fact, are not competitors at all. Nikon and Canon are not competitors of Leica. Remember the "New Coke," "Classic Coke" fiasco of tens years ago? Coke totally abandoned it's loyal base in the hope of capturing Pepsi's base by imitating it. Coke assumed its base would be product loyal and stick with it. Didn't work, and it cost Coke millions of dollars to learn that lesson. Those millions would easily bankrupt Leica. It also had the adverse effect of chasing loyal Coke clientele into the waiting arms of Pepsi. After all, why have an imitation, when you can have the real thing? And even today, Coke has not fully recovered from that disastrous, and potentially dangerous business move. What you are proposing is no different, and just as stupid.

I think Leica has shown, and continues to show Mature leadership. After all, one doesn't stay in business as long as Leica has, through the travails that Europe has indulged in over the last century, by accident. Plus, they have taken a huge step to move into the digital domain in their partnership with Panasonic. Money in the digital domain certainly isn't in the $1000 + business, it's in the sub $1000 sales, and offering price point products that draw on Leica's outstanding repetition for quality and expertise can only help them. I've found it of particular interest that everyone seems to credit Canon with providing Leica's lens in the Digilux 1. In fact, Canon has yet to produce a lens. Canon designs lenses, but the manufacture is totally outsourced. Much as Zeiss has done with the Contax line, and now Leica is doing with the digital line. The Digitalux 1 is, by all accounts a very interesting design, with the type of start up bugs one would expect. (But for bugs, one only has to look to the Contax N digital to see how not to do it.)

As for the demise of film, that future is still many years away. Never before have we had such an array of outstanding films to choose from. And such a huge base of products already in the already in consumers hands. And, it seems, even newer and better emulsions are brought out every year. Professionals do not drive the photography industry, it was, is, and always will be a mass market phenomena, much a Kodak envisioned many, many years ago.

So, personally, I consider the points made in your post a formula for disaster. Hopefully, more rational, mature, and business savvy minds will prevail at Leica AG. Glenn Travis

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.

"because of all the third world countries which will not be able to convert to digital technology for decades to come. "

Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on the economics. A lot of those third world countries were years ahead of the US in taking to cell phones, for example, because the infrastructure was cheaper. For similar reasons, email is getting to be a very popular means of communication amongst those who have access to a computer.

And besides, the pockets of people unable to afford digital photography may not be sufficient to ensure the continued production of modern, sophisticated films. Consider for instance the old Large Format portrait and banquet cameras. Many of them continue in use, or tin-can replicas have been produced for use, in the poorest parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the film is no longer the beautiful old glass plates that these South Asian family photographers used a generation ago; instead, they use poor quality home-brewed paper negatives...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 27, 2002.

Hello Again -this time on topic:

I have great faith in the future.

I travel extensively in Asia and deal with one of the Photo Giants in their operations over here.

They are investing Billions in physical plant here to make film and paper for the Asian market. I have said this before, but we westerners who have computers and printers and other toys, see digital as making a direct frontal attack that can not be resisted, and if not tomorrow, then next month, all trad silver photo stuff will disappear off the face of the earth.

No Way!! There are about 4 billion prople in the world who can not afford a 20 dollar fixed focus modern-day Brownie, let alone a computer outfit, who want pictures of their kids, weddings, picnics etc. Not only a $20 camera but a $3.00 roll of film is a luxury. THAT is what will drive the market.

Do not be surprised to see Kodak ( The A*** Company is opening a plant in China too!) someday market film made in Kodak plants in China or elsewhere, having closed up shop to some degree or other in exisitng plants.

The Kodak plant I knew as a kid in Toronto, that made a full line of cameras and film (the film right from silver, as I knew the chief chemist) is now a warehouse and makes inkjet paper that Kodak sells all over the world. Things change.

There are also the plants in the old USSR and east block that will continue for decades to serve their market, and me likely, as I like the old style of sheet film.

Whenever I hear these discussions, I'm reminded of the drivers of the teamsters driving horse-drawn wagons decrying the advent of trucks: what is the truck drivers'union called today? Also, when moveable type was introduced, many monks bemoaned the loss of scholarship, for how could anyone learn anything if they did not write books in longhand.

I just bought a few CDs of Elizabethan and earlier music today and all the instruments are made on the patterns of the origials, and the performace styles are patterned after the period practices. How do we know how a 12th century "therobist" played? Some of the instruction manuals have survived.

I can imagine 100 yrs from now a photographer will have the contents of Ansel Adams' " The Negative" injected into his brain by the neural interface in his shirt computer, then rebuild a Weston Master V meter and a few days later have a glowing silver print.

There is a strong cottage music industry thriving on 12th century theorbos, 13th century Krumhorns, 14 th cent. rebecs, 15th cent lutes, 16th cent citterns, 17th century violins and 18th century horns and harpsichords, and many many people making the music with the instruments.

I am certain there wil be a few skilled craftspersons making Leicas and LF view cameras. A shop is open in Singapore that sells almost exclusively new Cosina Voigtlanders- the complete range, and the lenses are absolutely great and the bodies just as good. The 12x18 prints I saw today from the Voightlander 105, f2.4 APO Macro were better than MF 10 years ago, thanks in parge part to the new emulsions as well. The build quality leaves nothing behind!! Enough rambling. I shot 2 rolls with the M6 and 35 Summi today, so I can not be accused of not using them.

I am off to China & Japan for a month and taking the M6, 35 & 50 Summis, Konica RF c/w 3 lenses and the FM3a with the 40 mm Nikkor, 35 mm MIR and 100 mm Kalenar, and a Snapman tripod & SB 23 flash. I will definitely post some results this time, as I will need critiques, slings & arrows.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.

Yes, I agree with most of Richard's ideas.

And besides that, I happen to be 55 so I don`t care; I won't outlive film. This is not more than a theoretical subject for me.

But the trains story was interesting and educative all the same. Thanks, François.

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (inmgenieria@simltda.tie.cl), May 27, 2002.

I feel that, as others do, the confusion lies in how much Leica wants to compete against Nikon/Canon, etc. I don't think they do. I think Leica has been, and is (and knows it is) a company building for a niche market. Just as Rolex or Patek Phillipe is not competing against Timex or Seiko, Leica is not trying to compete against the 'majors'. They're customer base has not been for a long time the hardened pro, the shooter who will switch to digital because it is cost efficent or time saving. Their customers are collectors (no matter how much we make fun of 'em, they spend a lot of money), lovers of fine equipment, and artists who appreciate the quality of the cameras and the look of conventional materials. I completely agree with Glen, and will use an example a little more in line with cameras. A few years back Rolex decided to jump on the quartz bandwagon. They lost lots of cash and alienated a lot of customers who saw the end of Rolex as a 'quality' watchmaker written on the walls. The years following the quartz fiasco were Rolex's toughest, though they bounced back. Like Rolex, Leica's customer base is not one built on people who always weigh things like work- flow and up-to date specs into the equation, but more on 'timeless perfection'.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 27, 2002.

FPW -- your steam analogy is just plain silly whether applied to leica specifically or silver-based photography generally. the steam trains were competing in a commodity industry. all that mattered to their customers was the $$ per lb-mile cost. the quaint factor was meaningless. by contrast, the majority of leica m users buy the cameras (and arew illing to pay thru the nose for them) for irrational reasons (love the feel, the look, the history, etc.). they do not engage in cost/benefit analysis. a good analogy here is sailboat. before the mid-nineteenth century, all goods were shipped by sail. as soon as cheaper, faster steamboats came along, sail- driven cargo vessels vanished. however, their demise did nothing to hinder the recreational sailing industry. indeed, you mite argue that it is sailboats' obsolence as a commercial shipping medium that lies at the heart of their appeal. as for the comparison of steam to silver photography, the comparison is closer but still no good. business must adopt cost-saving innovations quickly or get slaughtered by their competitors. again, with sailboats: when steam came along it wiped out sail shipping in a decade (for the most part). the vast vast majority of photographers are amateurs to whom cost, etc. is not a decisive factor. they can afford to make chnge gradually. indeed, making change gradually is the way most humans like to do it. film will be around for a while. it may go eventually, but not in the working lifetime of a 30-something leica user.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 27, 2002.

OT - Sorry about this, but I really hate when people mentioned about SUMMI
It does tell you NOTHING at all....

-- hans siddharta (hsiddharta@cbn.net.id), May 27, 2002.

HAns;

OT

On this thread there seem to be accepted abreviaitions for familiar objects like SUMMIcron, summiLUX, summiCRON. It seems to tell many people all they need to know. Jargon/argot/cant-use whatever term you wish- it is all language common to a particular group of practitioners of the same art. A doctor will talk about BP, TURP, D&C etc. and not draw criticism from his/her peers. IMHO FWIW LOL

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), May 27, 2002.

Yes, but some weeks ago we had that argument whether 'Summi' refers to Summicron or Summilux.

I'd rather agree with Roger than with François, i.e. IMHO the sailboat vs. steamboat analogy is closer to the actual situation of rangefinder cameras today and, as far as we may speculate, tomorrow. (Heck, I've written my masters' thesis paper on eschatology.) Currently we see the first deep sea-capable "steamboats" while the tea clippers are running ciurcles around them.

A modern deep sea-capable yacht has about the same area of canvas as an 18th century trade vessel.
Dhows and djunks are still around.
Wooden recreational boats are en vogue again; they are a PITA in maintenance, yes, but there's "so much more character in them" than in those fibreglass boats...
But the last attempts at modernised wind propulsion systems (anyone heard of Flettner rotors?) were given up for good in the 1920ies.

I'm sorry to destroy your confidence in the "third world" making sure film will be around for a long, long time. Last week my parish got mail from a parish in Guayaquil, Ecuador, which we occasionally support. Contents of the envelope: a letter and three digitally taken photographs showing the parish school's new computer lab.

-- -- (Oliver.Schrinner@campus.lmu.de), May 28, 2002.

Glenn, Canon certainly produce lenses in the Utsunomiya factory: http://www.canon.com/about/group/list.html

-- Jan Mattsson (janm@it-huset.se), May 28, 2002.

Bob writes:

>> I feel that, as others do, the confusion lies in how much Leica wants to compete against Nikon/Canon, etc. <<

Bob, I really don’t care what Leica wants today or not and my point is not related to Nikon or Canon either. Neither Nikon nor Canon are producing SFRF… Others are and not major brands of camera makers.

First point in case: is the small format rangefinder camera still a valuable TOOL for a photographer? My answer is yes.

Second point in case is Leica M today the best possible tool to seduce the potential customers of such a camera, knowing the built- in limitations of the formula and its logical practical applications? My answer is definitely NO.

Third point in case is Leica still keeping the same share of the market it has (share not number of unit sailed). My answer is NO.

Fourth point in case: within a foreseeable future, will the remaining customer potential be sufficient to maintain Leica operational? My answer is NO unless it becomes a strictly luxury item with no practical advantage justifying to buy it. And then will the potential of customers be sufficient to maintain it either? My answer is VERY DOUBTFUL because you don’t wear a Leica the way you wear a Rollex or a Patek-Phillipe which looks more like a jewel than anything else and hardly a fraction of potential luxury customers will be interested enough to want a Leica M.

To sum it up I doubt Leica has a sufficient potential market to stay alive with only snobs as customers. Proof of that Leica Camera AG is still constantly in the red today…

>> I don't think they do. I think Leica has been, and is (and knows it is) a company building for a niche market. <<

To have a “niche market” is something which could be fine but to restrain the potential each year as they do is not conducive to longevity either…

>> Just as Rolex or Patek Phillipe is not competing against Timex or Seiko, Leica is not trying to compete against the 'majors'. They're customer base has not been for a long time the hardened pro, the shooter who will switch to digital because it is cost efficient or time saving. <<

When their customers has been the “hardened pros” Leica (then Leitz) has never been in the red… This is a FACT… Hardened pros and seasoned amateurs are a niche market but much more numerous and addicted than the “snob” market who has a lot of different products in a lot of less technical domain to satisfy their ego (even in LVMH group product range: everybody needs luggage and snobs will be satisfied to show their “Louis Vuitton’s” ones, hardly a small number will want a Leica M).

>> Their customers are collectors (no matter how much we make fun of 'em, they spend a lot of money),<<

Real collectors will look for oldies not for the last special series M, only collectors-investors will be interested : remember the craze about old cars as investment some years ago and what resulted in the end ? They may spend a lot of money but it is doubtful it will ever be sufficient to make Leica Camera AG a profitable branch…

>> lovers of fine equipment, and artists who appreciate the quality of the cameras and the look of conventional materials. <<

Fine equipment, as far as leica M system is concerned is limited to the lenses today (still the best and going fine for this department is useful to other branches of Leica and investments are sufficient: Leica lens production was effectively modernized by the way. I don’t consider anything produced after the M5 as a real high quality body. If you omit the red dot on a M7 and compare it in all fairness to an Hexar RF with no pre-conceived bias, you will hardly find anything better built or assembled on the M body. With modern production tools you’ll have no problem producing and assembling a mass produced item better and more regularly than a hand crafted one. We are no more in the 60’s or the 70’s…

>> I completely agree with Glen, and will use an example a little more in line with cameras. A few years back Rolex decided to jump on the quartz bandwagon. They lost lots of cash and alienated a lot of customers who saw the end of Rolex as a 'quality' watchmaker written on the walls. The years following the quartz fiasco were Rolex's toughest, though they bounced back. <<

I think to compare something which is BOTH a jewel and an everyday TOOL for anybody to something which is by destination a TOOL for an amateur or a professional is not relevant. If you want to be different than the common people (in one word: a snob) you’ll probably be a customer for a such a watch as everybody needs a watch and bear it everyday. It is hardly the case for a camera… So the comparative means nothing IMHO.

>> Like Rolex, Leica's customer base is not one built on people who always weigh things like work- flow and up-to date specs into the equation, but more on 'timeless perfection'. <<

A watch be it mechanical or quartz is a watch, nothing more nothing less and provided it gives you the time when required functionally who cares… The fact is the built-in limitations of a present M body precludes to use the original concept to its utmost capabilities, so to say it is a “timeless perfection” is nothing but illusion. How long this illusion will be a relevant argument for sales is something nobody can forecast but the more the new direct competitors of Leica will produce technically better and cheaper alternatives, the less it will influence the potential customers. As I don’t think the customers you describe, Bob, are numerous enough to be a real market, even a niche one.

Roger writes

>> FPW -- your steam analogy is just plain silly whether applied to leica specifically or silver-based photography generally. the steam trains were competing in a commodity industry. all that mattered to their customers was the $$ per lb-mile cost. <<

What you seem not to understand Roger is like for the steam locomotives, the absence of an element (some pumps and other apparatus for steam locomotives, silver halide film for a traditional camera) will totally wreck the capabilities of a piece of engineering to work… And it is not the small market described by Bob in its post which will preclude the film to disappear, not in short terms but in middle terms (15 to 20 years as far as one can guess).

>> the quaint factor was meaningless. by contrast, the majority of leica m users buy the cameras (and are willing to pay thru the nose for them) for irrational reasons (love the feel, the look, the history, etc.).<<

This market is IMHO much too limited to permit a brand to survive. Advanced camera users are already a limited market, between them snobs and collectors-investors are a very small minority… As for the real collectors second hand market is fully sufficient to satisfy their needs for years… The quaint argument is only a plus in a specialized tool market and a camera is a specialized tool prior to be a fashionable gadget…

>> they do not engage in cost/benefit analysis.<<

It is not a question of cost/profit analysis (by the way as long as it was possible to use them N&W “modern” steam was competitive, another factor contributing to the steam demise there was the smaller older models necessary to exploit the lines which were not is the same cost effective line). It is a question of sheer utility as the user’s market is the only one which is really able to make Leica M line survive or not.

>> a good analogy here is sailboat. before the mid-nineteenth century, all goods were shipped by sail. as soon as cheaper, faster steamboats came along, sail- driven cargo vessels vanished. however, their demise did nothing to hinder the recreational sailing industry. indeed, you mite argue that it is sailboats' obsolence as a commercial shipping medium that lies at the heart of their appeal. as for the comparison of steam to silver photography, the comparison is closer but still no good. business must adopt cost-saving innovations quickly or get slaughtered by their competitors. again, with sailboats: when steam came along it wiped out sail shipping in a decade (for the most part). the vast vast majority of photographers are amateurs to whom cost, etc. is not a decisive factor. they can afford to make change gradually. indeed, making change gradually is the way most humans like to do it. film will be around for a while. it may go eventually, but not in the working lifetime of a 30-something leica user. <<

What you seem to overlook is the fact the amateur market (not the very, very small “Leica-mateurs’market”) is already going to digital “en masse”… Because the real amateur market is the “cheapo” buyer “by excellence” and not a single silver based cheapo is likely today to run a lot more than 5 years… Do you really believe their next buy will be a silver based point and shoot camera? And then how many customers will remain for silver based films? Even the somewhat advanced market of cheapo reflex SLR’s is going for a five to ten years lease only today… Very few people are concerned today by a 30 or 40 year plus duration for a camera. And less and less people will be as the generations used to such kind of goods will fade away. Do you really think (and moreover with the more and more stringent environmental control) the film production will continue as soon as it will have no more practical use…

The third world countries argument is pointless here, just look how fast the prices in the computer technology is going down ? … A sailboat needs only the wind to operate and wind there is as always, a classic camera will need film which as a human production is liable to be discontinued.

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 28, 2002.

How many members of this forum buy NEW gear?

Perhaps Leica should consider buying back used and/or damaged gear, refurbishing and then reselling. The car manufacturers do so. Certain watch maufacturers do too.

-- L Wheeling (none@none.none), May 28, 2002.

After all the above, I'll just say that I've been surprised to see many PJ's using Leicas or Voigtlander Bessa R's in combination with Canon or Nikon AF cameras. A few even use nothing but Leica - but they are a very tiny minority. But many people still have a Leica M6 round their necks all the time, even in conflict zones (I certainly do, with 24/2.8 attached and prefocussed). So I think most working snappers would see the M6 or 7 as an adjunct to their slr gear for special uses. If Leica can continue to convince them of their viability, then the M's will still probably be around for a while.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 28, 2002.

Dear Rob,

I think it is just THAT kind of customers which should be targeted by Leica...

People knowing the practical advantages of a SFRF as a complement (or sometimes the main gear with an SLR complement, be it a 35 mm one or a medium format SLR)...

These customers are really professionals or seasoned amateurs, they are liable to be more numerous if they feel they have all the possible technical advantages they can wait for nowadays and at a fair price...

I think though they are a "niche market" in themselves they are numerous enough to secure a brighter future to leica M system than the snobs...

It would be however less and less possible for Leica to convince people like these ones to buy something which doesn't really offer any real advantage whiule you can buy now a more or less equivalent camera for at least half the price of the original and still use the same lenses...

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 28, 2002.

Francois, maybe you hang out with a different Leica user but here are some facts (statistically Leica will tell you this pretty much holds true worldwide). I work for the largest indepentdent photo dealer in Western Canada. We do business worldwide via the internet and are based in a city of 750000. I can count as my customers a Life Magazine shooter based out of NY (a personal friend, otherwise I'm sure he'd shop in NY), a couple of Rueters shooters, a couple of McLeans shooters (Canada's version of Time magazine), etc. I sell quite a bit of Leica. On average (and this has held true for the last 10-15 years) 1, maybe 2 shooters out of 10 using Leica are pro or semi pro and use their Leicas for serious work. Most are amatuers, both serious shooters and collectors, plus a few pro who purchased Leicas strictly as their personal cameras to use for their own shooting. These 8 out of 10 people bought Leica sole because of what it is, not what it isn't. I think Leica knows very well what it's market is.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 28, 2002.

first, let me apologize for using the word "silly." i should have proofread my reply -- i didn't mean to sound arch. needless to say, FPW is too much of a gentleman to have complained (or responded in kind). your posts, francois, are always very interesting to read. as to your replies, i will add the following: (1) if spare parts is your concern, there ar two things to consider. to return to my economic model, the steam engine maintennace had to be economical for the company to stay in business in a commidity environment. there are no such constraints on leica m owners. (obviously not, when people are paying more for a cla than the cost of a midlevel SLR). virtually every MECAHNICAL part on an manual m can be custom machined if necessary (albeit at a cost). in addition, there are literally millions and millions of Ms out there to serve as parts cameras for the forseeable future. there were not millions and millions of steam engines sitting around for that purpose. now the m7 is a different story. i think there is every chance that it will be an orphan in 20 years (like the CLE -- and that was a MINOLTA [i.e. huge profitable co.] product). however, that amortizes to abot $100 per year, and i'm happy with that. now, concerning your second point, market size, i really think that leica can survive as a niche mfr. there is never going to be a return to the glory days when leica was a true, widely-used professional camera. if the company adjusts its business model, i believe that it can sell five to ten thousand bodies a year, triple that in lenses, and stay profitable at that level. indeed, once digital becomes pandemic, i think its luddite niche is likely to become even more solid for a decade or so. after that, who knows.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 28, 2002.

I liked the sailboat analogy, but the analogy that's much closer is musical instruments. One thing that's different between photographers and musicians, is that you'd never hear a musician castigate another musician for discussing gear. Musicians love their instruments.

Especially in electronic music, there's numerous parallels: Japanese manufacturers have switched to digital instruments and would never consider putting analog back into production; Professional and serious amateur users have to buy instruments that are designed for the mass market hobbyists; and venerable names like Moog continue to make, and command a premium price for, "obsolete" analog instruments. Moog would die if they switched to digital, and the world would suffer a sad loss.

Along different lines, if I attend an event with my rather large extended family, probably 80% of those folks are taking family snapshots. Not a scientific cross section, but to me they represent the mass market for photography, which will ultimately decide if film will disappear. Exactly one of those folks as got a digital camera, and recently supplemented it with a 35mm P&S after the novelty wore off and the battery demands became too onerous.

Again, this isn't a scientific survey, but these are typical mass market people for whom the difference in image quality between digital and film isn't even an issue. I'm convinced that film will continue to be the primary medium for quite a long time.

Joe

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), May 28, 2002.

Bob,

You write

>> … On average (and this has held true for the last 10-15 years) 1, maybe 2 shooters out of 10 using Leica are pro or semi pro and use their Leicas for serious work. Most are amateurs, both serious shooters and collectors, plus a few pro who purchased Leicas strictly as their personal cameras to use for their own shooting. These 8 out of 10 people bought Leica sole because of what it is, not what it isn't. I think Leica knows very well what it's market is. <<

And I have no doubt this is true! … But for me, as a user of a SFRF I know so well the advantages of this formula I think (whatever will be in the future the kind of method used to record the image in the “box”) it is a pity… My conviction is these advantages can be valued to such a point the interest of many professional and seasoned amateurs who are presently reluctant to buy a 35mm rangefinder camera as a complement to their SLR system (be it a 35 mm or MF one) and the problem is cost/efficiency ratio. As an Hexar RF user (but mostly with Leica lenses) I think I have a much better cost/efficiency ratio than with a M7.

I will probably accept to save for an eventual M8 at the present price of the M7 if it has a manual + spot metering / AE + matrix metering combination, a modern high speed shutter with a high speed real flash sync. with TTL metering at 1/250th of a second and a loading system which will be both a fast and efficient one and compatible to an eventual conversion to a digital high definition back in the future. I know many people around me who will certainly do the same. But to pay a mostly 50 year old technology (mostly amortized) the price of a high end reflex SLR is too much for me and for them.

I must add that when you compare the prices of the best lenses available and knowing the Leica lenses are still retaining a real edge versus the ones from their competitors, the price to pay this edge should be considered on the contrary relatively fair. Leica lenses for the quality they bring are not so expensive. But if you compare the price of more or less technologically similar (but for the fact it is an SLR) Nikon FM3A body and the one of an M body there is no way you can have the same feeling…

My conclusions remain unchanged: Leica for failure to invest in modern production technology is unable to market whether a high end rangefinder camera which can justify the present retail price or lower its body prices. As long it remained the only company in business to produce a SFRF which can use their wonder lenses, they could hope to barely stay afloat. Nowadays they are facing an all new situation they never faced: cheaper (and not “cheapo”) cameras with about the same capabilities, including the use of their own lenses. If tomorrow Konica issues simply a magnifier (like the one issued by Leica) for their Hexar RF, all the lenses in the present Leica M range will become usable at full aperture (which is the main shortcoming of the Hexar today). If they build an Hexar RF2 with 1/250th of a second TTL flash, more silent mechanism and cut the small shutter lag and introduce a variable magnification finder they have an M7 killer. If they introduce by the way matrix metering in auto mode they’ll literally kill Leica itself. So Leica must react now if they want to survive as camera body makers…

Roger,

Believe it or not, to reproduce any part of the Leica M series in a commercial shop will be a patent violation. In fact it is exactly the same problem once faced by the N&W with such externally built parts I referred to in my original post. And N&W found uneconomical to pay the royalties to produce these parts in their own shops despite the fact they have the integrated means to do so. Personally I still mourn my defunct M5 (probably the camera I liked the best) BUT I was forced to do so as the cost of its repair was equivalent to a mint second hand one… It was not economical to repair it.

Anyway my concern is not spare parts in the Leica case. My concern (which is not for a near future) is for any classic camera… As long as you need the production of something from a third party and here you need 35 mm films, you are vulnerable.

We cannot determine when film will disappear, but it is clear it WILL (like the wet collodion process and the glass plates)… This will by no mean be the end of photography, just another evolution of it. Leica is trying to enter the new business but, see the thread on the Digilux on the board, they are failing to reach their target… The only way they have to enter the new era and survive is to prepare now the conversion to high definition digital technology (Hasselblad is following that path since the very beginning). The best way to do so is to conceive and produce a silver halide film body and lenses combo on which only switching the backs will provide a way to convert them to the new technology as it will convince people to invest in them, knowing their investment will not be ruined.

You write:

>> … now the m7 is a different story. i think there is every chance that it will be an orphan in 20 years (like the CLE -- and that was a MINOLTA [i.e. huge profitable co.] product).<<

The main problem with the M7 is to have retained what was justifiable in the classic M6 mechanical body: a 50 year plus shutter with a slow actual sync. speed and an awkward loading procedure as in fact a M6 was more or less a direct amelioration of the M4. And by the way to have kept the price so high with something “well seated between two chairs” as we put in France. An “electronic M” should have been something really different: a user’s camera while the M6, still in production, would have remained the epitome of the classic camera… So I agree for the “orphan” but not for the delay imparted… You are completely missing the Hexar RF here… The same without red dot but at half its price… The CLE relative success was due to its price not its performances. Should it had a broad effective rangefinder base and a manual option to use its meter it would have cut the sales of M4-2 and M4-P.

>> however, that amortizes to about $100 per year, and I'm happy with that. <<

Roger, it seems many M7 owners are happy with their purchase… Some are even discovering that the “awful battery dependence” and this “horrible brain killing device” : the AE mode, are not such liabilities as some diehards have said. But sorry my poor budget does not authorize me to buy a M7… It happens I’m very satisfied with my Hexar RF body + second hand Leica lenses… And I don’t think there’s a lot of situations the built-in shortcomings of my humble Hexar RF will be a real problem in actual life… Call me an heretic if you want …

>> Now, concerning your second point, market size, i really think that leica can survive as a niche mfr. there is never going to be a return to the glory days when leica was a true, widely-used professional camera.<<

I certainly do not pretend they can be at the same place as before. Since the late 60’s 35mm SLR’s became as fast and in most situations as useful as SFRF cameras and they are able to handle much longer lenses and be used in macro-photography too… In a sense they are more versatile. One of our estimated participant: Noah, once wrote and I tend to agree with him they can do the same as SFRF in 80% of the situations (I suppose within the same focal length range). But still in 20% of these situations a SFRF performs better. If you admit very few photographers actually use long tele-lenses very often, and a medium format SLR potentially permits you much better macro-imaging, we can safely say the SFRF is finally a better answer to a quest to maximize the small format capabilities and a 35mm SLR (moreover the big modern all integrated all automated AF ones) finally a more specialized kind of body, worthy only for long tele- lens action photography. So I’m much more confident on the possibility of a major come back of SFRF than you are. I simply think it must not have a price which is beyond any kind of justification for what it actually brings in the field of technology.

>> if the company adjusts its business model, i believe that it can sell five to ten thousand bodies a year, triple that in lenses, and stay profitable at that level. <<

Unfortunately, since years it tried to do so it has never succeeded… Leica Cameras AG is continuously in the red…

>> indeed, once digital becomes pandemic, i think its luddite niche is likely to become even more solid for a decade or so. after that, who knows. <<

I don’t think so because it has competitors in the niche now (your assumption was true before)…

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 28, 2002.

Joe writes :

>> I liked the sailboat analogy, but the analogy that's much closer is musical instruments. One thing that's different between photographers and musicians, is that you'd never hear a musician castigate another musician for discussing gear. Musicians love their instruments. <<

Dear Joe, what seems to be difficult to make understood is would it be a bottle of Coke, a sailboat or a classic music instrument, these are self contained devices. Once they are produced they don’t need anything else to be used. The Coke bottle once, the other items each time you’ll want to use them. Now, when you use a classic camera, you need something which is called FILM… As long as you’ll have it is fine, but if you can’t find a roll anymore, your magnificent traditional marvel is simply a piece of junk metal and glass.

Something which definitely rules out any comparative such as this one.

The fact this situation is liable to occur in a relatively distant future only proves you can safely buy a silver based film camera today if you want maximum quality in the result. But to use as an argument this camera will last 40 years plus is IMHO completely irrelevant… Nobody can forecast today the exact date but considering at which speed digital technology is progressing and how fast this technology reaches lower prices I consider very doubtful I’ll end my life (if I die of a natural cause) before the film will be a thing of the past (and I’m 48). At best it will be gone within the next 20 years or so…

Analog instruments provided they give you a different sound (for whatever technical reason) or (and) are more pleasing to use by the musicians and are not dependant on a third party liable to disappear to operate are totally different things.

But to take the part of your comparative which is nearer to the Leica M problem, the “sound” of the M is given mainly by the lenses and the RF concept, not the body. Read carefully the posts of our friends, M7 owners, they are discovering the AE mode and battery dependence are not impairing their capabilities on the contrary to what some diehards Leica fundamentalists said. Some even discover they can do BETTER pictures with these features than before. Surprise! It is possible to use more modern technology in a M without spoiling the results! … So goes down the myth of the necessarily all manual, all mechanical M…

As to people getting tired of digital cameras and coming back to silver based P&S It is by no mean a scientific survey… We have the general statistics on the market and the share of silver based cameras is constantly dwindling each year… The only serious argument against digital cameras is the quality is still inferior to what a film can bring. And this argument concerns mainly advanced amateurs and pros. Not the average customer, by far the more numerous and the real hardcore of film consumers.

How long will the film last ? Who knows? But the switch to digital is already set and there will be no come back.

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 28, 2002.

FPW -- i doubt if any of the basic component parts -- screws, gears, bits of metal -- are themselves patented. the overall device is what the patent covers. you can't patent basic mechanical parts unless there is something very unique about them. even if these items were subject to patent protection, no machine shop would worry about fabricating them and leica would never prosecute such duplication to repair an otherwise unrepairable item (the premise is the leica can't supply the part). and as i said before, a parts camera or two is all you need to keep an old leica going anyway. don't know what was wrong with your m5, but it COULD have been fixed at some price. as for film, it will be around for a long time. think how few people use 8x10 sheet film (a few thousand -- maybe ten to fifteen) worldwide, and yet it is still widely available from suppliers large and small. how many years until 35mm demand dwindles to such low levels -- twenty, thirty ?? film is not that hard to make -- a number of small firms make their own stock -- you don't need a giant like kodak to support the industry. you mention some 18th century emulsions in your last post as examples of things that have gone by the boards. it may surprise you to learn that places lie the photographers formulary still can supply these old materials. indeed, with the onset of digital they are more popular than ever. bottom line: it will be a long time 'till 35mm film diaappears. even when it does people will be able to freeze their own stocks that will last ten years or more (i recently used some deep freeze tri-x for a banquet camera that had a 1981 expiration date. the fog base was higher than usual, but it still worked). stop worrying about film!!! it will be here until you're grey. heck -- several million film ased cameras were sold just last year.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 28, 2002.

I've often wondered why the hell photo companies want to stress digital as there is so much money to be made off of film, chemicals, paper, etc. This alone will keep film alive I think in the end. People spend exorbitant amounts of money on old cars, old trains (Lionel, Marklin,etc.),old houses, antiques and all the other older things you can think of.Why?? Quality and nostalgia, not to mention that in a complex world many people gravitate towards the things that have meaning,longevity and purpose. Why the hell would someone buy a 12x20 LF camera and pay upwards of $5,000.00 bucks without a lens and wait a year or more for delivery for essentially a wooden box with metal fittings? Life is to be lived. If I want to watch TV I will. But make no mistake about it, TV it is a sleep machine. When I pick up a camera I photograph to reach internally a more real state of mind and being. I wake up. Like meditation. Or like any real activity such as music. I dont get that with a digital. If the film companies stopped making film you would have an even bigger return to LF photography with glass plates. And the corners would be better.If Leica reissued the DR Summicron I would be the first in line to buy one. Logic dosn't enter here, only heart. As far as the steam engines are concerned one can only marvel at their beauty. If they could be made more cheaply I'm sure they still would be around. Fortunatly Leica allows the ordinary person to own and use something extraordinary, and not have to be a millionaire. Leica is on the right track with their M camera. A thing of beauty, simplicity, and power.

-- Emile de Leon (Knightpeople@msn.com), May 28, 2002.

Emile:

I read your post with some interest. Let me guess; even though you have an MSN address, you are not Bill Gates. Am I right ? :<)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 28, 2002.

Art, I'm a musician turned businessman. In these kind of things( business) I think that psychology as related to quality drives the entire issue.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 29, 2002.

Roger writes:

>> FPW -- i doubt if any of the basic component parts -- screws, gears, bits of metal -- are themselves patented. <<

If a screw or gear is made to a standard which is currently available there is a chance it is not patented, but if it is a specific part then it is patented just like any automotive part (at least until it fells into the public domain).

>> the overall device is what the patent covers. you can't patent basic mechanical parts unless there is something very unique about them. even if these items were subject to patent protection, no machine shop would worry about fabricating them and leica would never prosecute such duplication to repair an otherwise unrepairable item (the premise is the leica can't supply the part).<<

From the present experience it seems Leica is still able to repair very old cameras itself but at a very expensive cost… Do you really think they will relinquish this source of revenue easily ?

>> and as i said before, a parts camera or two is all you need to keep an old leica going anyway. don't know what was wrong with your m5, but it COULD have been fixed at some price. <<

Of course it could have been… The question is not related to this point… But the cost to fix it was superior to the one of another one in mint condition… Nobody will dare to make a camera fixed under these conditions. And when the cost of the repair will again be beyond the price of another working camera then the body will be a museum piece… I’m a USER Roger, I’m not a collector… And today even a collector will think twice before making such a piece repaired when he can actually obtain another one in mint condition for the same price. I needed to have a rangefinder M mount camera operational and had no time to wait for the right second hand body that’s why I bought (after extensive testing) a new Hexar RF for about the same price I had to pay for the kind of M5 I wanted to buy. I guess very few of us will dare to repair a “user’s state” camera for the price of a mint second hand one.

>> as for film, it will be around for a long time. think how few people use 8x10 sheet film (a few thousand -- maybe ten to fifteen) worldwide, and yet it is still widely available from suppliers large and small. <<

As for the suppliers, Roger you live in a happy country, here this sheet films should be available on special order only. Now you simply forget the fact the emulsion used for these sheet films are exactly the same used on some 35 mm, 120, 4”x5”, 13x18 films and are made by the same kind of plants. So this is only a variation is related to format… Hardly a big technical problem.

>> how many years until 35mm demand dwindles to such low levels -- twenty, thirty ?? film is not that hard to make -- a number of small firms make their own stock -- you don't need a giant like kodak to support the industry. you mention some 18th century emulsions in your last post as examples of things that have gone by the boards. <<

Again Roger I don’t know how long it will take but what I know is when something is produced in limited number by plants relying more on manpower than robotized high tech lines it is likely to be more and more expensive and see its quality become irregular at best. Then where will you process this film? For B&W, if the environmental regulations let you buy the necessary chemicals there probably be no problem (at least for a while) but for color films it is another question… Just explain me how you will resolve this problem when all commercial labs will be closed ?

>> it may surprise you to learn that places lie the photographers formulary still can supply these old materials. indeed, with the onset of digital they are more popular than ever. bottom line: it will be a long time 'till 35mm film disappears. even when it does people will be able to freeze their own stocks that will last ten years or more (i recently used some deep freeze tri-x for a banquet camera that had a 1981 expiration date. the fog base was higher than usual, but it still worked). stop worrying about film!!! it will be here until you're grey. heck -- several million film ased cameras were sold just last year.<<

As for the 19th (not 18th) century emulsions, they were all orthocromatic which means you were liable to prepare them under appropriate light rays and they were extremely slow by today’s standard. So they were relatively easy to prepare yourself. Try to do the same with a 35 mm panchromatic emulsion including cutting the support and making the appropriate perforations… I guess you won’t succeed … These are mandatory industrial products.

Of course you can stock freeze films. You even can, protect them to a large extent of any fog by coating your freezer with lead plates… And then ?

The real point is what will be the interest to do such things when digital will reach the definition and other capabilities of silver halide based films?

Do you realize the economics of the solutions you propose? For 99,9999999% of the photographers they won’t even think of doing that…

My only concern about film is to worry about its availability as long as it will bring you a quality superior to digital process. What will happen to the film thereafter doesn’t really bother me.

I’m sure that I’m more representative here of the average user than you are.

That’s why I don’t consider a valid argument to defend the Leica M (in fact mainly its unjustifiable price) to say it will last 30 or 40 years (which, by the way is IMHO very improbable if used by a pro or semi-pro). It would be a valid argument if this body was ready for a transition to the new technology which is not the case.

Besides, as a user I don’t care if a body is able to stay operational for such a long time if it means it won’t be able to take the pictures I want to take because using a 50 year old technology. My SFRF equipment has a place inside a more important combo. I know where and when I can use it to obtain the best results and consequently, where and when it could have been used with better chance of success if it has this or that feature. I need this equipment as it is today nevertheless, but I’ve found a solution which is cheaper and will certainly keep working until a better, newer solution appears be it silver based or digital…

I’m sure the eventual market for a high end user oriented SFRF is much broader and profitable than the present market targeted by Leica. I can understand their policy only linking it to sound advertisement through a famous (but totally non profitable) product and the choice not to invest in modern lines and deal with a technology they’ve not the capabilities to master themselves. But this is by no mean a realistic policy if one wants to make money with such a product. It explains why this department is allowed to remain in the red. But this product is very vulnerable and likely to be withdrawn from the market if the directorate of the group owning Leica AG decides it costs too much for the side benefits it brings.

I think a lot of leicaphiles here are blind to this aspect and still biased against anything non-Leica. They think the situation is unchanged but in fact it has changed since about two years. And I don’t think the side benefits of producing the M body will be as efficient when compared to the costs of production because its market will be more restraint now than it was before. As a French I know too well what is the usual policy of the LVMH group. They won’t hesitate a second to close down the plants if they consider they are no more useful. This is why I think it would be better to push Leica AG to modernize once and for all and exit from the red if we want this production to continue.

I may be wrong, but I think most of my friends here are very optimistic… Perhaps too optimistic.

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 29, 2002.

Francois, firstly let me say that you bring some of the most intelligent arguments to this issue that I've seen. And in the end you may be right. Of course in the end I (or others may be right). What I think you are missing is that Leica doens't have to be (and to me doesn't strive to be) everything to everybody. They have a niche market that they fullfill and make a bit of money at it. Not a lot mind you, (and to everyone who says the annual reports are of doom and gloom, it's often to a small companies best advantage to look like it's not doing that great on the surface), but enough. I think the whole philosophy behind Leica is a small market, exceptional quality camera/lens, and untill that philosophy changes they will continue on as they do. B&W film is easy to make, and in fact there are many companies making it without a large outlay of manpower and expense (relatively speaking of course, I can't whip it up in my basement). Color, especially transparency film is an other matter entirely and may go by the wayside sooner than we realize. But as long as their are companies like Leica, Wista, Zone IV(Calumet) and a host of others there will be black and white film. Some of the 19th century emulsions may be difficult to get where you live, but a quick perusal of Large Format magazine lists at least 3 places where I can get platinum and paladium printing materials, all shipped within the week. But you do ask a fair question. In 30 years will Leica survive as they are? Will Ferrari? Rolex? Mont Blanc? Companies like these exist because there are still many people who don't buy into the cheap consumerism of today. I deal in my business with a lot of schools. 8 years ago they were racing to buy Canon Zapshots (remember those) and HP printers. Last week it was announced that CONVENTIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY is being added, for the first time ever, to the grade 8 curriculum as a required course (photography was always an option). Seems the feedback from many young people is that they get enought 'Sony Playstation' at home and want to learn something 'real' (a teachers words, not mine). I think conventional photography has a bit of life left in her yet.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 29, 2002.

Analog instruments provided they give you a different sound (for whatever technical reason) or (and) are more pleasing to use by the musicians and are not dependant on a third party liable to disappear to operate are totally different things.

They are a close analogy to the steam engines, because manufacture of each was (or is)  dependent on off-the-shelf parts which can go out of production. In the case of analog synths, the famous CEM chips are a good example. This is a much better comparison than your film argument. Film is a consumable, used by the end user, not an off-the shelf part used in manufacturing.

Digital cameras, by contrast, use what's quickly becoming the ultimate worrisome consumable, energy. Perhaps you are aware of events currently happening in central Asia? The cost of this consumable, not only in terms of money but also in terms of human misery caused by war and repression, may be too high. Film may easily become the only acceptable consumable to use.

But to take the part of your comparative which is nearer to the Leica M problem, the “sound” of the M is given mainly by the lenses and the RF concept, not the body.

I can't agree with a single word of this. The lenses are a relatively unimportant part of the Leica "sound", especially if you shoot hand-held like most Leica M users do. How is the RF concept different from the body?

Joe

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), May 29, 2002.

Joe:

I can't agree with a single word of this. The lenses are a relatively unimportant part of the Leica "sound", especially if you shoot hand-held like most Leica M users do. How is the RF concept different from the body?

While I am not completely sure what you are talking about, I will take a shot. This is given with this exception; I have no idea what the Leica "sound" means.

The point has to do with the R & D investment in the Leica M bodies. I have an M3 and an M6TTL [or did]. As far as I could tell, the shutters were the same and the M3 had a better finder. Neither has what I would call a reliable shutter. I also have another mechanical camera; it is a Nikon F2. It still works as well as the day I bought it. So much for quality.

The point is that Nikon didn't stay with the F2 body; they developed more modern technology. Leitz hasn't made that development investment. Modern technological development is not evil, and the M7 isn't modern. There are now other bodies [R2 and Hexar] that will serve my purpose. I am sure that there are more to come.

Does that mean that I don't use Leica in 35 mm? No; the 35 asph is the "sweetest" lens that I have used. Still, it is not likely that I will be using it on an M for many years. I stick with my 5 year prediction. That is, the Leica name will be on a camera produced by another company. ;<)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 29, 2002.

Joe,

I think Art has entirely undrstood what I meant about Leica M bodies.

Now about energy, Let all that environmentalists'prefabricated nightmares die... Nuclear fusion (no more fission and its dangerous byproducts) will take care of that sooner than you'll probably think.

The world can't survive and develop itself without more and more energy... And you need energy to produce films. Petrol has replaced coal, coal had been replaced by nuclear fission and nuclear fission wil be replaced by fusion...

Now about the sound analogy: only the Leica lenses will give you a certain fingerprint which is characteristic of the M photography. This is by far the best and the most up to date part of their products. When I use them on my Hexar RF it is impossible for the viewer to tell this shot wasn't taken with a M body.

Back in 50's, there were a lot of Leica copies around, some of these bodies were not really inferior to the famed Leica originals, but the M mount was still a proprietary things of Leitz AG.

So if you wanted to use these lenses (which were then as today the best) you were complied to use an M body. This is no more the case today. Leica is facing competitors again who have no more this handicap: the M mount is in the public domain.

The small format rangefinder concept is not the property of Leica, by accident it has been assimilated to Leica when other brands disappeared or turned to SLR proiduction only (the Nikon F was derived from a prototype Nikon rangefinder camera).

To take once again your comparative with music instruments, to speak of Leica as an equivalent to SFRF is to speak of a piano calling it a Pleyel or to call a guitar by whatever famous manufacturer's name you want... It is a term of abuse.

The only thing which really pertains to Leica is the subtle and specific balance which they use in their lenses to obtain a specific kind of imagery and the technology they developed to have lenses properly working wide open at very wide aperture (a consequence of one of the most important advantage of the rangefinder camera, which, provided the rangefinder is correctly aligned, permits you to use these wide apertures effectivly).

What I am sure of is the body is very accessory their. And no USER will really care what is the trade mark on it if it offers him more opportunity to use those delightful lenses.

Friendly.

François

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 29, 2002.