Digital will be the end of Leica..

[ben4]

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 ?

[ned_learned]

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).

[bert_keuken2]

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.

[fotografz]

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!

[godfrey]

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.

[djphoto]

"The report of my demise was greatly exaggerated."

 

<p>

 

-- Mark Twain

[joel_matherson]

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.

[george4]

"Leica doesnt just make cameras of course. Thier Microscopy

Division does very well."

 

<p>

 

Different companies. Have been for years.

[jay_.]

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.

[karl_yik1]

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!

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

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.

[glenn_travis5]

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">

[nesrani]

"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.

[jackflesher]

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>

 

:-),

[i want my photo.net histor]

Glenn,

 

<p>

 

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

taking it?

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

[glenn_travis5]

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.

[roger_michel]

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.

[djphoto]

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.

[bobtodrick]

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.

[patricks]

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

[Robin Smith]

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?

[keith_davis1]

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?

[glenn_travis5]

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.

[eliot]

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.

[fotografz]

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.