Kodak sells division that makes Leica's sensors

This was <a href="http://www.photo.net/photography-news-forum/00ZZe4">posted</a> in the news forum today; Kodak has

sold the division that makes Leica's M8, M9, and S2 sensors to a private equity firm.

 

It will be interesting to see what effect this has on Leica's plans going forward; manufacturing stocks of

sensors for the current product lines are probably not in danger, and Platinum Equity may well resell the

business to another firm which rests on firmer foundations than Kodak, but future Leica camera designs might look

different.

<p>PE has a habit of increasing leverage and cutting costs (e.g. R&D). This may not bode well - especially if they do not sell to someone in the sensor business or with the resources to sustain significant R&D spending</p>

<p>Long ago I wished that Kodak would sell off the divisions that produce/d B&W film, paper and chemistry.</p>

<p>Kodak's primary business is Eastman movie films, what we buy is a sideline by comparison.</p>

<p>Okay, the days of handcrafted industrial products (real existing... oxymoron) are long gone. That was a market niche even back then.<br>

But the names of this new "investors" alone do reject me, and they even reveal it all: Blackstoned, and Platinum Equitititi:<br>

They sound like cheap hairdressing franchise chains! Maximum gain, short gap, short cut. Financial engeneering at it's best. Suckers. Of these 1% people. Intended for milking traditional cows to death.<br>

And as in peluqueria bizzness, the morning after it won't look like you left the shop the day before...<br>

As for Leica, maybe they will even profit from this, finding another/innovative source in the future!</p>

<div></div>

<p> I wish them luck.</p>

<p>It's going to be tuff for Leica to install Canon, Nikon or Fuji sensors and claim superiority.</p>

<p>From my perspective a Canon sensor or a Sony one (Sony makes the nikon sensors) would be fine. This gives Leica a state of the art sensor and allows them to continue selling great cameras. It is much better than a situation where Leica sensors become increasing uncompetitive as Kodak or a smaller supplier struggles on. Interestingly the Sony sensors used to perform better in Nikon than the equivalent Sony as Nikon processed the image better (e.g. D3X and Sony 900 use the same sensor). I am sure Leica can have their supplier adapt the basic technology to their design and have no anti alias filter for example. I am pretty sure Canon, Fuji or Sony do not regard Leica as a competitor.</p>

<p>I agree with Philip's statements, particularly the last sentence. Leica is in a niche market (RF system camera, small size, limited optics, more manual operation) that the others do not seem interested in invading, mostly in view of its very small size.</p>

<p>Perhaps the dialogue exists, but it would be nice to see Leica conferring more with its buyers.</p>

<p>What do they want? Would the new Sony sensor (24 MP) be that, or increased performance of the existing sensor? Or a Fuji type approach? Or converting all three channels of an M8 type device to exclusive B&W capture (would that not effectively yield about 31 MP in B&W, or at least improved overall pixel size?). Of course, the M9 could also be so converted by Leica, but that might not square with purchasers. Kodak's imaging (sensor) purchaser may well not provide long term growth needed for Leica.</p>

<p>Nowadays, establishing contact and implication of the customer in many service industries is key to product and market development. Leica has relied on pros in the past to test their ideas. How about the Leica buyer, amateur or pro, having more say and influence on the directions of camera improvement?</p>

<p>What say you, Leica? (Or Erwin?).</p>

<p>Leica has been hinting that the M10 (or at least future M's) might have CMOS sensors, so that would likely mean a different supplier than Kodak anyway. I am not that happy with the turn of affairs for Kodak and what it means for photographers (I tend to agree with Knut and Philip here...Platinum Equity is a code word for "strip to a shell then resell"), but I think Leica is likely to wind up with a different style of sensor very soon, as the market is increasingly demanding things that can only be done easily on CMOS (live view, video, extremely high ISO). </p>

<p>It's a shame to see finance interfering in production, but Kodak's ruination of itself should be taught in schools as a warning to others. Kodak has long been traveling down the path of financialisation. To these managers every early retirement of a specialist chemist and every emulsion withdrawn from the market is a win for the bottom line "this quarter."</p>

<p>Of course at the end of this process you have nothing left to sell, and no means of funding pension or pollution mitigation measures, but the top managers and shareholders got paid and local government and the taxpayer i.e. all those unable to dodge their obligations - are left with the environmental damage and ongoing costs, and the ex-employees who gave their creative energies to make all this happen are abandoned.</p>

<p>The purpose of the corporation today is solely the accumulation of capital, any useful products produced or jobs created are merely coincidental to this process. This is parasitism at it's worst. That it has lasted for just over 30 years is a miracle, but 2008 tells us the game is up.</p>

<p>Hopefully one of the Asian technology corporations will provide Leica with a sensor, but I wonder what the cost will be?</p>

<p>I think the Japanese photo industry have a high regard for Leica, but do no see it as a threat or a valid competitor. It may be possible for Leica to get sensors other than Kodak, if that vanishes. It might as they've let the tiger in the door. Leica too is involved with an investment company..If i worked at Leica, i might be sending out my resume..Sony or Canon or even Samsung have great sensors.The use of the sensor is the tricky part..Leica is very small, creating new hardware and software for a new sensor a daunting task. The delay and await of new sensors as seen on the internet indicates that Leica does NOT have stocks in supply and on hand.<br>

The electronic camera is really like all such consumables, i.e PC computers, a disposable item. Thats easy when it a Canon PowerShot that sold for under $200. Kinda heartbreak if its a M8,M8-2 and M9.<br>

I still shoot film,have hi rez scans made and playing with doing my own B/W. My mechanical cameras(Pentax Spotmatic,Nikon-F,Fuji and of course my Leicas.) will easily outlive me and probably most readers of this forum.<br>

The joy of digital is always spoiled by the threat of obsolescence in equipment and method.</p>

<p>I wouldn't worry too much for Leica. Many of the big name camera designers/assemblers use sensors from other companies. I don't think Hasselblad really cares where its sensors come from, as long as they are compatible with its high end cameras, advance the technology and at a competitive price. Leica is know for its leading edge lens design and construction, and a robust and very size-competitive small body for a system camera. As the sensors improve, whether one has an "AAA" quality sensor or just an "AA+" quality sensor isn't going to make much difference for many of us. Even though the M8 is technologically surpassed at the sensor level (but not lens), it doesn't stop it from making excellent photos for at least a large part of those within the Leica market. For many, it is not outmoded. The M9 is similar. When a successor replaces it, it will still be a fine and practical digital camera. </p>

<p>Obsolescence is really a state of mind, and arguably less important to many practical photographers without the need for the latest "advance. Film users don't necessarily all shoot with the equivalent of Technical Pan or Pan F films, or need or want to. They are not all at an optimum level in regard to image resolution.</p>

<p>Obsolescence is real and awful.The market is driven by the manufacturers and everybody (almost all) are like gerbils on a spinning wheel. Even here at "photo.net" i constantly am reminded that i live in a dead past, using film. Some kind person keeps telling me, that now(it keeps moving) is way better than any film user could imagine. The best part is i do use digital.I love the convenience. I hate most modern equipment esp. cameras without a decent viewfinder! This includes DSLR where focusing by hand and eye almost impossible.<br>

My Leica M6TTL viewfinder is part of this deliberate negation of quality that once existed. As one writer wrote" ..with the M-3 one is the pilot/driver of a Formula-One car, the M-6(and other newer M'sM7, M8,M9)one feels like the passenger in the back of a bus!"<br>

Ask for a viewfinder on a compact? I get looks like i fell out of Jurassic Park.<br>

Prior to retirement i worked in afield of Micro-mechanics.Watchmaking. Electronics ended the possibilities of a product lasting a lifetime. Circuits could be ended. No new replacements made and i firmly believe that many circuits, have a timing, that at a point end, it's life.<br>

It may not be possible to replace say a Sony sensor in a M-9. The same threat now hovers over The Hasselblad-Fuji,Pentax 645D,Leica and a few others incl. Kodak cameras..</p>

<p>Kodak is taught as an example of disruption by Clay Christiansen and Michael Raynor. In essence they saw digital coming but had the wrong assets and were unable to react. Their assets were a vast network of retailers and processing labs plus chemical skills and production capability. They were essentially unable to get into the silicon business. Their customers had the necessary chip design and manufacturing skills (or an existing supplier) as they were already using them for AF units etc... Kodak tried to enter the camera market but had no real design and range of lenses. In hindsight they should have looked to buy a camera maker (e.g. Pentax).</p>

<p>While Leica financials look good right now a couple of years ago they were close to being bankrupt. Given their scale and niche market they are really just one or two failed products away from bankruptcy.</p>

<p>Philip, the M5 (and even the CL) were market disasters and Leica nearly folded, but it re-invented itself in the late 70s with new superior lenses (Mandler) and the M4-2, M4-P and quite soon thereafter, the M6. It will probably happen again, but it is hard to submerge a company and a technology that has been re-developed and has evolved since 1911/12. Kodak got itself into a paradigm of action not too unlike the Swiss watchmakers at the introduction of the quartz timing module.</p>

<p>I think one should see where Kodak was as regards the whole sensor thing..It might be a shock! I wonder who got the whole silicon thing running? Like General Motors, Kodak has a large retired workforce,that costs! As they had done in a previous country, in the name of "sanctions" they abandoned a workforce, with no benefits..In fact the whole economic "downturn" the loss of trillions(i know they weren't really there..) the collapse of so many peoples investments have all been done before. Tested and perfected.<br>

Kodak developed and made much of what we now enjoy as digital photography. In 1997/8 Kodak offered me a DSLR that was full frame, could be set for B/W or color. In truth that model has really not been surpassed considering the quality of the sensor. The price at time was $19,999.50. Not incl CA sales tax. I was working in Newport Beach,CA. I did NOT buy it. It failed due to lack of circuit replacements. Think Kirk Tuck uses similar but newer model..<br>

I have no idea what will now happen to their military supply division for satellites etc. It might be like Jeep losing all it's contracts by being owned by a foreign company. (USA law).<br>

The Leica also being partly owned by an "investment" company is a bad sign. Better they sold off to Canon/Nikon or Sony. Thats all that's left..Pentax is busy being stripped and piece mealed. Olympus has been left in deep trouble by top management blatant thievery.<br>

Everywhere in the "democracies" the "Occupy-wherever" are being squashed.<br>

All i want is a camera,photography, not geog-politics, crooked investment corporations that strip good companies of all assets, like the pirates and hoodlums that they are.<br>

I wish i was as happy with Leica new look.Thankfully my Leica set, all mechanical should last longer than me..<br>

Arthur, the Swiss may have lost their dominance as a single world supplier of watches etc but are heavily involved with the so called competitors..All the smaller very good companies all were absorbed by the family and group who own most of Switzerland.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The M9 sensor has microlenses that become progressively more offset from the actual photosites as you move toward the edges of the frame, to minimise the problems of extreme ray angles on rangefinder lenses. A standard Canon or Nikon FF sensor doesn't have this feature as SLRs put the light onto the film plane more normally. You would get more purple fringing and fall-off if you put, say, a D700 sensor into an M9. The existing sensor still needs a load of post-processing (hence the 6-bit coding) to sort out the deficiencies in the raw image.<br>

The M9 works surprisingly well but you can argue that historical rangefinder lens design, which exploited the lack of a mirror box and often placed the rear nodal point very deep into the camera, was only really suitable for film. Film is less fussy about the angle at which it is hit by light. In future I imagine Leica will start to design M lenses which are optically more like the R-line. The only problems I see are larger physical size and potentially more distortion (Nikon still can't build a 35mm lens which doesn't bend the horizon).</p>