Digital will be the end of Leica..

[kelly_flanigan1]

<img src="http://it.geocities.com/early_135/touristmultiples.jpg"><a

href="http://it.geocities.com/early_135/Index.html"><BR><BR> "There

were a number of 35mm still cameras using perforated movie film prior

to the Leica"<BR><BR>Tourist Multiple became the first 35mm still

camera to be sold commercially (although it had been on the market

sometime toward the end of 1913).</a>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<BR><img src="http://it.geocities.com/early_135/touristmultiples.jpg">

[kelly_flanigan1]

<BR><BR><img

src="http://it.geocities.com/early_135/touristmultiple.jpg">

[kelly_flanigan1]

<a href="http://www.pakuranga.school.nz/NAME/aps.html">Kodak's grand

plan in 1996;The Birth of a New Format.</a><BR><BR><a

href="http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/investorCenter/discTrans/1q02mda

1.shtml"><b> Eastman Kodak Financial Discussion of First Quarter 2002

Results</b>"Worldwide consumer film sales to dealers (including 35mm

film, Advantix film, One Time Use Cameras) in the first quarter

declined 13%, reflecting 7% volume declines, 5% price/mix declines,

and 2% unfavorable exchange. <b>U.S. film sales to dealers decreased

19% </b>, reflecting 15% volume declines and negative 5%

price/mix." ; "Full year 2001 restructurings are now expected to

reduce total employment by approximately 7,000 jobs worldwide."</a>

[rich_fowler]

Well, I suppose the demise or assimilation of Leica would be a

boon for the collector's market.... but seriously, if Leica/Leitz fails,

it won't be because of digital, because after 16 Megapixels, the

current technology collapses in on itself. See:

 

<p>

 

medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html

 

<p>

 

Someone who actually works in Silicon Valley on digital image

sensors wrote the above article, and I can't fault the logic.

 

<p>

 

I've worked with both, and although digital is nice for snaps and

newspapers, film still looks better blown up to 8x10 on nice

paper. I haven't seen anything from a D1 or a 1D that can rival

even el-cheapo film. (My favorite brand.) It's a simple issue of

data-- one frame of 35mm holds 50+ megapixels, while the

current digital theoretical limit is 16.

 

<p>

 

Now if Leica/Leitz could find a sensible business plan, well, we'd

all be set...

 

<p>

 

Rich.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Rick; which link on "Scanning Medium Format Images

by Robert Monaghan" is the topic you mention? Kelly

[kelly_flanigan1]

Found it! Cool article!

[yongfei]

For recent two years, I've been searching for a perfect amateur

camera system. Now I am quite sure that there is no single camera

system that can serve all purpose. At current technology, as long as

Windows coming out a new operating system every 3 years, digital is

too expensive. I won't go into details.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, if I want to shoot concert, formal meetings, hand-hold,

low-light, poor Third-world life, etc., there is nothing technically

better than Leica M in the 35mm format, nothing that has a better

balance between flexibility and quality in all camera systems,

Rolleiflex 2.8 included.

 

<p>

 

Convenience is not an issue. Leica has made itself the way, the Tao,

the Logo, the Logos, the Lotus of photography. I know that I need

practice to master the photography art. Of course I can hit a "Play"

button to listen to music, or I can learn to play a fussy piano. It's

my choice, and I really need both.

 

<p>

 

Can somebody tell me how to "take" a concert picture with a SLR or

point-shoot, without being a paparrazi? Digial SLR doesn't help here

either because it also has a clicking, vibrating mirror. So maybe a

mirror-lockup with tripod? :-)

 

<p>

 

Lots of people complaining Leica is expensive, but best quality only

comes at a price. Harvard tuition is way overpriced in my opinion, and

I probably can't tell any difference between a state-university and

Harvard graduate; Oh, how about that silly, diamond wedding ring, I

can't tell a difference between a glass and a diamond, why those

stupid bride won't buy a cheap glass instead? How many of you have a

$5000 sofa "system" in house? >$30,000 car in garage? How about a

$200,000 home with a $2000 monthly mortage payment? Why don't just buy

a $150,000 house and get all Leica, Hasselblad, Linhof, monolights,

darkroom, photo studio all under my smaller roof? I'm on the way

doing that....

 

<p>

 

My conclusion: I can skip other luxury items in life to get any camera

system I want. And I really need a Leica M in some occasion. Of

course, I can let my eye be the camera and my memory be the film. But

when I bring a Leica M to a concert, a museum, I know that I'll make a

real picture. In those situation, only Leica M will make it....

 

<p>

 

Again, can somebody tell me how to make a picture technically as good

as Leica M's in a classical concert, with a SLR or a digital whatever?

In other words, is there any other camera system that is quiter,

quicker to respond, more hand-hold friendly, easy, accurate to focus

in darkness, and with a >50 years service life?

[rich_fowler]

I dunno... I come from the opposite point of view. A camera is a

tool. It's a box that catches light. In the right hands, it allows the

photographer to capture a moment. In the wrong hands... well...

eww...

 

<p>

 

That said, I've seen wonderful pictures taken with a $20 Holga,

and some dreadful pictures with a Leica. It isn't the tool, it's the

person using the tool that makes the difference.

 

<p>

 

Most importantly, it's the vision that the person behind the tool

has. If that person doesn't have a clear vision, then it doesn't

matter how much the lens costs, the picture won't be clear to the

viewer. The photo won't communicate, and from my point of view,

photography is all about communicating something coherent.

(Yes, even art photography is supposed to be coherent on some

level.)

 

<p>

 

The best example I can give is that whenever I'm in a bad mood

or just plain distracted, I don't take good photos. Don't know why,

but that's the way it is. Technically, they'll be fine, but they will

usually lack something. But if I'm relating to my subject, and

things are flowing well, then I'll do my best work. *Shrug* I talked

it over with a friend of mine who's an art photographer, and she's

had similar experiences. We agreed that sometimes we just get

lucky (broken clock), but when we're not in the right frame of

mind, it just doesn't quiiiite do it.

 

<p>

 

The main reason I switched to Leica wasn't because of some

sort of quest for perfection-- I was just looking for a different way

of seeing, and it seems to do the trick to a point, but after that

point, it's still all my fault if it doesn't happen.

 

<p>

 

It's really easy to get hung up on gear-- we see it all the time-- the

trick is to get past the gear-lust and get on with taking pictures.

Gear-lust just gets in the way of taking pictures. Get your gear,

read the fine manual, get out in the sunshine and get on with it.

 

<p>

 

respectfully submitted,

[the lone ranger]

people will disagree, but in 15 to 20 years when people my age have kids who grow up to be my age and younger, digital will be what film is today. film will be a niche product. digital cameras is becoming a household product now, and the kids who are born today will not know of an older world dominated by film. its just the way it is. people my age didnt' even have opportunities to buy those huge records that my parents used to listen to. i grew up on tapes and cds. and its cds and dvds now. i don't even know how to use a record player. i see the same thing happening with film. when digital is of super high quality and cheap, there would be no purpose for using film anyway when it can do the same thing and more. btw, isn't leica those types of cameras found in quantity at the old antique pawn shops? heheh. :-) pretty sure i saw a bunch in seattle at this one place.

[msitaraman]

Pawn-shops? Where,where?!