ben4 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Hi, <p> I read some really bad articles about leica future, I just wondering if Leica can disappear with they really not sell enought ? Can they really be out of the market like that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned_learned Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 It seems to me that more than a few years ago, th advent of polaroid signaled the end of regular photography as we know it. The last time I looked, Polaroid was in the midst of bankruptcy. The digital craze(and that is what it is currently), seems to be peaking. There might be a bit more merging of the two practices, but for the forseeable future, both branches of Photography will move ahead side by side.(One person,s opinion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bert_keuken2 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Consider the large base of installed 35mm gear. Not everbody who owns a 35mm camera now is gonna 'go digital' in the future. There will be plenty demand for 35mm film in decades to come. <p> As for Leica, it could disappear in the future. The only thing we can do is to keep buying Leica gear and make the company financially healthy again. I just made my contribution, I bought the Leica SF20 flash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 On the Leica site, there's sure a lot of bitching going on about the delayed digital camera, and problems with its' Panasonic twin. Is it possible such a wonderful company as Leica could fall on hard times? I don't know, perhaps someone at Polaroid could elaborate. Leica WILL go under if all the minimalist on this site convert everone to their "less is more" POV. But I can assure you they won't go bankrupt because of me. With the arrival yesterday of a 4X4,16 meg ( 94 meg/12bit file) UNTEATHERED Kodak ProBack for my Contax 645, I am just about all digital in every format...EXCEPT for my Leicas! Ironically, my digital cameras just earned me enough to order the 24/2.8 ASPH. I've been drooling over. To me Leica IS digital: M camera, Tri-X, 4000dpi scanner. The images stand up to, or beat, anything out there. IMHO Leica should've kept the partnership with Fuji and added a real Leica lens to Fuji's excellent imaging technology. Now where's that phone # for my Leica pusher? Got to help save Leica for future generations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 No company is immune from economics and pressures of the marketplace. Even long established firms have found themselves on the rocks of misfortune. <p> My own experience buying a current top-prosumer digicam is that it has, for the most part, supplanted my 35mm film usage. When I really want quality and tonality, i find myself reaching for medium format, not 35mm. Only rarely does the additional capability of film's responsiveness and low light versatility require me to shoot small-format film anymore, other than purely for the fun of it. <p> If Leica cannot respond to the changes which are swirling around them quickly and appropriately, they could well go into the dark, not to return. That would be a sad day. <p> "For everything there is a season" as the old saying goes. We have yet to see whether the season of Leica's pre-eminent film cameras has run its course as yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djphoto Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 "The report of my demise was greatly exaggerated." <p> -- Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_matherson Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Leica doesnt just make cameras of course. Thier Microscopy Division does very well. Here in Australia the cameras are imported by a very poor serviced agent but for Microscopes its run by the Company Leica Australia. Thier service is very very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george4 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 "Leica doesnt just make cameras of course. Thier Microscopy Division does very well." <p> Different companies. Have been for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Leica is of course in the business of selling *new* cameras, so let's put aside for the moment the second-hand market. To purchase a *new* Leica camera system requires a great deal of money. There is only a certain demographic that can and will fork over that much cash for cameras which are technologically a decade or several behind, based on their esoteric perceived value...and Leica knows that demographic well. It is, however, an aging one, as any glance at an LHSA meeting will confirm. Leica it seems is dabbling in digital on a buy-in-and- badge basis, but it looks like they're counting on milking their niche market as dry as possible for as long as possible, maxing out existing tooling and committing as little R&D as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl_yik1 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Leica have always not sold 'enough' cameras, but their sales esp in the rangefinder sept have really picked up in recent years. But digital will never kill of chemical photography. This medium will fall into the same category as other so called 'replaced' technologies such as Mechanical watches, Vinyl records and hell even leather soled shoes! Traditional things live on for ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roberto_watson_garc_a Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 the same was said about painting when first photographic process appeard, as long as there are people interested in film they will make it. I pray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_travis5 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Digital appeals to those who TAKE pictures, as opposed to those of us who MAKE photographs. There are very few cameras that are able to make a photograph as well as the Leica M, but there are just scads of cameras able to take a better pictures. Only a small percentage of those on this forum seem interested in making photographs. "Mommy, I see pictures." Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000: <IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display? photo_id=776689&size=lg" WIDTH="750" HEIGHT="507"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 "Digital appeals to those who TAKE pictures, as opposed to those of us who MAKE photographs." <p> I've heard the make/take distinction so often but I really have no idea what it means. Sounds like a Minor Whiteism to me. <p> I just click snaps. When it looks good in the finder my finger twitches and that's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 I have to agree with Glen: For many subjects it's just easier to make the image look right before you snap via the direct-view of the M's VF... Especially when compared to the LCD display of a digital! <p> :-), Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i want my photo.net histor Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Glenn, <p> I agree with Robert. Could you tell me how you made that pic over taking it? <p> Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_travis5 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 I would classify a "Picture" as a representation of reality, and a "Photograph" as a representation of how you see reality. I am not talking about the "decisive moment," but about the approach. Do you mean to say that for your subjects you have no connection? That you don't try to represent their humanity for us to see no matter what their circumstances? That your "snap click" of your subject isn't done with caring, feeling, love, aprreciation of who they are and what they mean to you? How can you call yourself human, and yet only see your subjects as a snapshoot, maybe a a stepping stone to a better, higher paying job? It's pretty obvious to me, that you're held in high regard by many of your subjects, and yet to you it's only another snap? If I see one more photo of a starving third world person and their fucking cow, I'm going to puke! I thought you were above that. Obviouly, by your own words you're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 thanks for reminding me that only a leica can make pictures; i knew there was some reason i'd spent all that dough. anyway, as to the original poster's question, two points: (1) in my view, it is only a matter of time until leica gets scooped up by tamron, cosina, etc., along the same lines as contax and voigtlander (see a trend there). the value of the name is way too great to let it pass away. if this happens, we can only hope that the new parent will support all the stepchildren. the advent of the m7, with its electro-innards makes this more possible. (2) as for the demise of film, i say look to the third world. sadly, for decades to come there will not be an adequate infrastructure in many countries to support widespread use of digital cameras. in these places, there will still be a demand for film. there certainly will be a contraction of variety (already begun to happen), but film will still be available. needless to say, there will also be demand for film (although shrinking every year) in first world countries from the owners of the stimated 6.5 billion film-based cameras in circulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djphoto Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 No offense, Glenn, but I feel your response to Rob was unnecessarily harsh. I disagree with Rob about many things, but mostly not about photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Have to agree with Glenn on this one. I do a lot of what I call "fine art portraits", both for exhibiton purposes as well as commission work. My usual method of photographing someone (they usually contact me via my website) is to sit down with them at least twice over coffee, shoot the breeze (so to speak) so I can get an appreication (to some degree) of where they come from, so to speak, and for them to be at ease with me. I then ask them to think about how they want themselves portrayed for a week or so before we set a shooting day. In my mind I MAKE photographic portraits. A huge difference from the average portrait photographer who answers the phone, sets a day and photographs the person 10 minutes after meeting them. They are TAKING a picture. I could probably do this digitally, but my whole working method meshes well with conventional imaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 roger, you beat me to it. <p> 1) Leica will hardly go away, but is at great risk of getting acquired either by a Japanese massmaker, or by a luxury group like Vendome, LVHM etc. <p> 2) film is not likely to disapear anytime soon <p> 3) taking pictures/making photographs... i make no illusions of being an artist. photography makes me happy, that about sums it up. <p> cheers, <p> pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Glenn <p> You are becoming a bit of a broken record. Your pianist was much better in my opinion. As some of us say all the time, you have absolutely no idea what pictures most of us take or do not take, so assumptions as to that are completely unwarranted. I think your make/take analoogy is not all that useful. Some of the greatest shots are snapshots or taken without any planning. Any generalisations about what good photography is will be undermined by countless counter examples. I find your endless sniping on "I am the only photographer on this forum" theme rather tiresome - how about giving it a rest or challenge Jeff Spirer to a duel to sort it out once and for all? Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_davis1 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Dear Glenn Travis, RA, <p> I've read your thesis and your arrogant attack on other photographers. Now, could you please describe, precisely, to the assembled readers here, how your orchestra picture COULD NOT have been made with a digital camera? <p> A camera (and its installed recording medium) is a device for recording the light reflected off surfaces. While there are quality differences in the "capture" afforded by film and an electronic CCD, both devices are simply recording reflected light. <p> What do recording media have to do with "making" or "taking" photographs? <p> And what's with the attitude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_travis5 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 If all anyone is interested in is a technical representation of reality, then virtually ANY camera one could mention is far, far better at this than a Leica, and particually a Leica RF. As for the Photo I included in my post, you're right, any number of people with any number of cameras could have taken a far, far, better picture than I did. As for Rob, I love him like a brother. But he has choosen his own path, and his talent no longer belongs to his alone. It belongs to all of us. When we feel he is out of line, we owe it to him to say that which is in our hearts. But in the end Rob has to choose whether he becomes one of those Leica Legends or just another poporazzi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 I don't know how much digital will eat into the regular film camera market, but I don't think film will disappear anytime soon. As far as Leica is concerned they have other divisions besides their film cameras: eg., Leica Geosystems (scientific products for surveying etc.), the microscope division, the binocular division, slide projectors (this one does depend upon film being available). So they are not solely dependent on film cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Some of you good people are bit behind the times when it comes to digital cameras and backs. There is no comparison between the investment being made toward the advancement of digital receptors and that being allocated to film. Just do the math. So, exactly what is wrong with that? Digital verses film???? Who cares what captures the image? It's the image that counts. I don't want to go back to glass plates and 2 minute exposures either. (except maybe for the nostalgic fun of it.) I decided to invest in the best glass over cameras long ago. That investment paid off as digital came on line and I already had the best lenses. Besides, I'm not worried about the demise of film. I'll be long dead by then. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy my delicious little Leica cameras and their yummy lenses just as much as ever. Worrying about the death of film only lessens that joy. Live for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now