Leica's future in a digital world

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Last night, on the way home, I bumped into a photographer waiting for

the southbound Yamanote line train at Yoyogi station, here in Tokyo.

He had a bunch of gear and a monopod, and he was a foreigner, ie. not

Japanese.

 

As you might suspect, with most photo gear made here, the Japanese

are hard-core photographers. There are a couple of chain stores,

Yodobashi and Bic camera to name a few, and any city you go to seems

to have one, and there is a huge selection of gear. On weekends, I

usually see many young men and women prowling the streets with an old

Canon or Nikon, perhaps feeling that shooting with a film camera,

with it's distintive "click," and looking through a viewfinder, is a

more committed statement of artistic intent than snapping with a

digital camera. Maybe that is how some of us feel too.

 

Well, anyway, I got talking to this guy, who it turns out is a pro,

and he had just shot a football match featuring Beckham's Madrid (or

is it the other way around?). Beckham is huge in Japan. Not

necessarily because of any interest in football, but mainly because

of his blond chiseled good looks that drive Japanese women insane.

 

Anyway, I am an amatuer in every sense of the word, and like many

amateurs I would love to make a living with my hobby (that is if I

can figure out what my hobby is, buying and selling cameras, or

taking pics!). I said it must be hard to work as a pro in Tokyo, but

he said the work was there if you had a good portfolio.

 

Then I asked him if he was shooting digital. To which he replied in

the affirmative, adding he used film sometimes for other jobs.

 

"35mm?"

 

He laughed.

 

"35mm is dead."

 

Although he did say that some fashion photographers still used it,

mainly because they liked using their equipment.

 

I had picked up a couple of Leica handbooks on the cheap, and was

holding them, he noticed them and said that Leica rangefinders were

great, and he had heard that leica was planning to produce a digital

M7.

 

I wonder what the future of Leica, as a 35mm film camera and lens

maker holds. My experience lately does not auger well for film. If I

take my pride and joy, my Leicaflex out and shoot all 36 images in a

roll of film, I must compose carefully, and then wait around half a

week to see the results, and I am stuck with them, unless I want to

go to the hassle of scanning them.

 

With a DSLR, I can go out and shoot three hundred shots, on one

charge, not even filling up the 500mb card. Then I can come home and

make color, black and white, and all variety of prints on my cheapo

printer that are as good as anything from the lab. I have the added

bonus of them being my own creations, not the lab's, so there is that

feeling of ownership as a well. I would have this feeling if I had

printed them, but setting up a darkroom is kind of impossible in my

rabbit hutch of Japanese apartment.

 

In any case, digital capture and processing is the biggest event in

photpgraphy since the first Leica and the 35mm film cannister.

 

There is a kind of cyclical birth and death quality to the fact that

the birth of the Leica ushered in the greatest era of photography,

and Leica appears to be dying with the era it ushered in. Could Leica

play a leading role in this new digital era?

[dave_chadderton]

I went on holiday last year with two digital cameras and a laptop. I took about 2500 shots in 2 weeks (much to my wife's amusement). I did get a couple of good shots.

 

6 mths ago I bought a Leica. In those 6 mths I've managed to get some great shots.

 

Why? Because I THINK about my photography again. I am forced to take time. And the Leica just feels 'right' in my hands. I also got fairly frustrated by the constant megapixel race ... last years top model is old news and whilst 12 MP aren't required, I don't get 'upgrade fever' with my Leica! I just want more bodies!!!

 

So no, film is not dead. And in answer to the last question, " Could Leica play a leading role in this new digital era?" ... I doubt it - I guess they've missed the boat - they need to concetrate on lenses and quality bodies.

[frank granovski]

That's a nice story. Now I want to buy a Canadian made M4-P tomorrow; if I can find one. ;*)

[fate_faith_change_chains]

Ok here we go again one last time....( the problem is all inside your head you see, the

answer is easy if you take it logically )

[brunom]

Claude

 

It seems you have based this post on what ONE stranger said to you! For him 35mm might be dead - so what, that doesn't mean it is.

 

I don't understand your statement that Leica is dying ? they have digi + the DMR and will have the digi M, so what is it that you what? 6-8 new models, that are so great they rule the world? or is it that

you want the one camera, [ which of course doesn't exist] that everywhere you go people recognise 'as the best'?

 

Why not just take photos.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[wai_leong_lee]

It's an old topic, here are just some points for consideration:

 

a. If you want instant gratification, go digital or polaroid.

 

b. If you want to do all the work (photoshopping and printing), go digital.

 

c. If you want the lab to do the work, go film.

 

Thus, the question is, do you want to spend more time shooting, or more time photoshopping and printing? How much do you value your time.

 

d. Your home printer sucks, compared to the prints from a pro lab. Honestly-- to get great prints, you have to do colour management (a huge thing for pro photographers), set up a consistent digital workflow, get the best ink and paper you can find, etc. If you ask a lab to do it, they take all the headaches-- and if they screw up, they have to do it again for you free of charge.

 

e. It would be best if you could set up a darkroom, but darkroom mastery takes time as well as space, but the results can be different, even far superior, to cheap home inkjet printers.

 

f. Of course digital is the biggest thing in photography since the Ur Leica. What I need to know is what is the next big thing!

 

g. Who knows if 35 mm film is dead? So what if it is? My negatives will always be with me, and I can always print or scan them as long as I archive them well.

 

h. Can Leica play a leading role? Who are you kidding? Leica has been a niche player for the last 20-30 years now, they'll be lucky if they can stay a niche player in the next 20-30 years. However, of course I hope that they will survive. Just like Maserati, Rolls Royce, Bentley are all respected but non-mainstream manufacturers, I sure hope Leica will continue to be just as respected, even if they are not 800-pound gorillas of the photo industry.

[dan_mitchell4]

I find in my experience that a significant number of people who I speak to, who cry "film is dead" have never spent five minutes in a darkroom and have always relied on mini-lab printing, so in reality are probably experiencing an improvement with their new DSLRs etc.

 

Many people understand PCs, Photoshop etc and are willing to learn and improve their skills - few people really understand darkrooms, developing and printing, so in this resurgence in the popularity of photography with record sales of equipment, is it surprising that when people give film a go they are disappointed?

[steve_york1]

I just read in a digital rag that Mary Ellen Marks still only shoots film.

 

For folks under time demand, it makes sense to go digital. For everybody else, digital is less compelling.

 

I beleive that there are many folks who like to acquire electronic gadgets in this world. You see it everday in the business world; much of it is not needed. Anyway, digital gives some people the excuse to go buy a new electronic gizmo every year or so.

 

But I do also acknowledge that digital is probably more easy and convenient for home processing.

[jason]

The pro does sports! The results need to be as fast as light!

Is 35mm dead? If 35mm is dead, how come the Large Format is still around? Avedon, who died recently, worked with Deardorfs and 35mm..

Those big prints with all that tonal scale and DEPTH were large format. Yes I have a digital. Its for pro usage in making illustrations for a "web-designer/builder".

I have 2 rolls of B/W hanging, ready for filing into sleeves.I guess I am still shooting film..@ 3200ISO. Try that in your electronic gizmo. I used my Nikon-F(1970) and my M-3(1967). The lenses on both were f2.0, normal and wide! I could hand hold the exposures in poor available light. I can print or send out to a lab! My printer and I are on 1st term names..He knows what I want. There are NEVER reprints.

One has to find where one is comfortable. You are not comfortable with yourself! Relax and look at all your digital pix and compare with the simplicity of film and prints..Its not about equipment! I've been there and made many stores very happy! Now its a camera, usually my M-3 and the 50mm(1954) or the 35mm(1960) and a roll of film. My lab gives in the price a 8x12" print. Its very hard to get one really good print worthy of the large size!

The Nikon is used less because of the weight! In a slr I "need" lots of lenses..I cannot carry it anymore.The bag is too heavy and it affects my taking! I become a shlepper not a snapper!

So now is the time to get rid of what you "want" and go do what you need! Take photos! Digital is fine and maybe thats the way to go..

I am yet to see a digital print that compares to a truely well made photoprint.I know all the marketing is with digital.

Leica is special. It caters to an elite, snob well provided for clientelle.Their products are collected. That what makes it hard for us poor folks to own more!

If Leica makes a RFDR with digital..so what!

I will still have my M-3 and Ilford, Tura,Efke or some Kodak film..

[charles_stobbs3]

Referring to your last paragraph, the inventor of the cannister, Kodak, and Leica each have a foot in both camps. They will probably both survive.

[anthony_brookes5]

I am using digital occasionally (my wife's camera) but stick with film 95% of the time. I have never, never, seen a really good digital picture either on this forum or elsewhere that compares with a film image. I have also never seen a very good digital print from a digital image. I know my screen may be part of the cause but I do think digital pictures have a peculiar defect in 'punch' which not being an expert I cannot explain and which any amount of photoshop cannot improve. I have seen 16x12 digital prints which other people think are good. They are not - they are just fooling themselves or trying to justify their purchase. I can well see how professional press photographers find digital so useful but that is about the only real market for it at present. In my opinion any other digital use is belittling your skills as a photographer.

[doris_chan]

"I have never, never, seen a really good digital picture either on this forum or elsewhere

that compares with a film image. I have also never seen a very good digital print from a

digital image"

 

How do you know that this is the case? Does every image that you see have the technical

details posted beside it?

 

"I do think digital pictures have a peculiar defect in 'punch' which not being an expert I

cannot explain and which any amount of photoshop cannot improve"

 

If you're not an "expert" how can you be certain that knowing how to use Photoshop

appropriately won't cure the "defect"?

 

"I can well see how professional press photographers find digital so useful but that is

about the only real market for it at present"

 

If press photographers are the "only real market" for digital then why are companies like

Leica, Ilford, and Agfa facing such a seemingly bleak future?

 

"In my opinion any other digital use is belittling your skills as a photographer."

 

So Anthony Brookes walks tall with film while Jim Nachtwey and Nick Knight belittle

themselves with digital. Priceless.

[status_flo]

as a 25 year old photographer/assistant in london, with some leica R gear that i inherited,

an RZ, and use of my bosses's studio and his equipment (RZ's, Sinar P3's, Hasselblad H1..

all with sinar 54 backs.. and even a D70 for fun shooting)....

 

i have to say i agree that 35mm is very dead.

 

there's the obvious commerical photography reasons in the studio.

 

but also when i do a fashion test with film i find it gets expensive.. first i have to pay for

my film, then my processing i get for free (minus clip tests and extras) because i have an

assistant's account. then still after the processing i have to decide which shots i like and i

scan them for ?40 an hour just to get the images to a digital stage so i can work on them..

a digital stage that they would have already been in if i had a proper digital slr.

 

plus the photographers i work for that shoot on 645 digital backs tell me that they feel the

quality is better then the results they got on 8x10 tranny.

 

that's my youthful opinion; take it for what you think it's worth.

 

Tristan Townley

[jim_a]

They all have their place. A 35mm rangefinder is a whole difference experience in shooting

compared to using a DSLR. The last week I've been shooting video and photos of the All-

American Soap Box Derby for work. I've been using my Olympus E-1 to produce photos for

immediate posting to the website. I simply don't have the time to deal with film in this

situation.

 

A buddy of mine just got his first assignment for the National Geographic. They asked him

if he wanted to shoot film or digital. He uses and loves Leica M cameras. For him there was

no doubt, he was going to shoot chromes in his M6's.

 

Most of us here are amateurs and do it for the love of it. I have my rangefinders, a TLR, a

Contax 35mm film camera, a Holga and a DSLR. They each have a strength or there is a

time when it's simply fun to shoot with one of them.

[ben z]

I can only speak for myself. Even though some here say (continually) that a "serious" photographer cares only about the final image, what incenses me as a hobbyist in regards to the potential "death" of film is the concept that the market effect of others' choice threatens to usurp my freedom to choose. Kind of like, if everyone was switching from beer to wine and the beer manufacturers were closing down production, if I was a serious alcoholic I wouldn't care as long as I could get my buzz on, but as an occasional drinker I happen to prefer the taste of beer.

[akochanowski]

Another dopey discussion. Shoot what you like and shut up about it already.

 

But I'll throw you a bone. The mention of Mary Ellen Mark is correct. I did a workshop with her last year, and she most definitely shoots only film. Why? Because she likes it. She even spoke fondly of her Leica, although her latest project, Twins, was shot with a gigantic Polaroid. For regular shooting she walks around with a medium format Mamiya AF rig. For her kind of work film is useful. For a sports photographer digital is useful. Where's the mystery?

[steve_brantley2]

If Latin is a dead language, why do so many schools still teach it?

[ravi_swamy]

Film, digital, whatever. I use both depending on the situation. All that matters is the final image, not how you created it. Quit listening to people and do what makes you happy. If people don't like your methods then just tell them to go jump off a cliff and leave you alone.

[Sanford]

We should stop telling everyone 35mm is dead. At least until I've had time to dump some of my 35mm gear so I can afford a digital slr.

[brunom]

Steve

 

Latin is used by scholars, the Church and others, but it is also the basis of other languages and still has a relevance.It is not dead.

 

Bruno

[brett_davis1]

The biggest advantage for me of using digital is for flash work; you can see pretty much what you're getting, and nail an exposure in just a few seconds without needing a flash meter. Flash exposure has always been the biggest problem for me in photography, mainly because I don't do it that much, but my Olympus digital has made that problem go away.

 

The biggest drawback to the digital setup I have is the battery issue, because my camera likes to eat batteries. So, it's nice to grab my antediluvian Leica, which doesn't even take batteries, and go out wandering looking for pictures. Archiving is a bit of a pain, but not so bad now that I have worked out a dual backup archiving system that works OK for me.

 

Both digital and film are in my future (I hope).

[brett_davis1]

Oops, meant to move my sentence about archiving to the digital section ... film archiving involves tossing the negatives in a box.

[scott_mcloughlin]

Ok. Digital isn't dying. It's here on coming on stronger. I have a D70.

 

So, what about film? I shoot alot of B&W film. I like the process. I like the "look." I want grain, not noise. I soup my own negs and scan and print digitally (no darkroom). If I werent' so housebound (long story), I'd build a relationship with a good lab. A good B&W wet print is a real thing of beauty.

 

I like my film gear. 2 M6TTL's, an FM3a, a little Rollei AFM35 P&S. All give excellent results. All are small. Great ergonomics. Great VF's (excepting the P&S). All deliver the same 135 format negative.

 

My D70 is kind of big. The lenses are big. The viewfinder is small and dark. My 12-24 zoom isn't as good as my CV 21/4 or my Leica 28/2. Really nasty barrel distortion. The Nikkor 35/2 AFD works well on the D70. I don't really have an excellent ~ 100mm (equiv) lens for the D70. Nothing to rival my Leica 90/2.8 or Nikkor 105/2.5.

 

So I shoot D70 with flash, with studio strobes (tethered for "instant polaroid on my monitor), for some grab shots and party pics.

 

But when i wander out into the world, the street, the park, etc. I tend to take one of my film bodies. Usually a pair of M6TTL's. Sometimes just the FM3a and the lovely 45/2.8 AI-P and a longer lense, a 135/2.8 AIS. Whatever. It just feels right. The B&W results "look right."

 

As for cost, I buy lots of film and stick it in the freezer. Once I forget the bill, it's as if it were free :-) I just shoot the stuff and have fun.

 

Have fun. Take pictures. Make prints. Get a DSLR. It has strengths and weaknesses. It hasn't "replaced" film for me yet.

 

Scott

[steve_swinehart]

"...what incenses me as a hobbyist in regards to the potential "death" of film is the concept that the market effect of others' choice threatens to usurp my freedom to choose."

 

What a ridiculous statement. This is true of any product, not just film. How's you're life been since DuPont quit making paper? Still pining to by a new Duesenberg, Rover, Studebaker, or Packard? I suppose you still have a day of mourning for K25 yearly? What about all that GAF film you can't buy anymore? The world quit turning when Argus stopped manufacturing C3's?

 

If you are interested in making images, and not limited by self-imposed restrictions you can adapt your work to whatever technology or medium is available.

 

The good news? You CAN still purchase brand new buggy whips.

[michael_b._elmer]

The question, you raise, Claude, is the crucial question for Leica.

 

I've been using Leica rangefinders (IIIb, M3, M4-P, M6, M6TTL) for the last 46 years, R cameras (Leicaflex Type I, SL2 Mot, R4, R3, R9) for the last 23 years, Leica compact cameras (CL, AF-C1, Minilux, CM) for the last 21 years, Leica digital cameras (Digilux Zoom, Digilux 4.3, Digilux 2) for almost the last 6 years, and Leica's DMR for the last 2 days.

 

During the same years, it has become ever increasingly difficult to find good film (my choice: Kodachrome 25 Pro went out), and to have films processed and copies made in decent quality. Also the scanning of film to digital media is usually of poor quality.

 

The quality of digital cameras have at the same time improved drastically, and with the DMR digital photo's are now so good that they clearly beat the quality of analogue pictures (at least when enlargements from film are not hand-made in big format by specialists at extreme prices).

 

The Digilux 2 was a good step on Leica's way towards the digital M. A digital M must, however, "feel" like a Leica M and must have no shutter delay. The Digilux 2's greatest problems are the shutter delay (which may be due to the lack of a buffer) and the "loose" controls. If Leica can solve these problems and build the functionality of the Digilux and the DMR into an M-body with the normal M finder (I would love to also have automatic focussing) and the normnal "M-feeling", the MD will become a success, and Leica Camera AG will survive.

 

The R9 with the DMR and a good lens like the 35/1.4 or the 19/2.8 is quite heavy, and I am sure that the next generation of R cameras will be purely digital. However, the function of the combo is most convincing, and the pictures excellent.

 

After having seen the DMR's results, I see no problem in leaving the traditional 24 x 36 mm format - the format given by the DMR's chip is good and useful, seems to get the best out of Leica's lenses, and also seems to correspond to the development of big computerscreens (see for insrtance Apples 30' cinema HD screen) and big flatscreens for televisions (and "photo frames").

 

Against this background, the question, in my view, is not whether Leica will build digital M, R and C cameras in the future - because the answer is obviously that they must do so to survive - but whether there will be a sufficient demand for film cameras to continue producing the traditional M cameras, when the digital M has been presented.