Digital will be the end of Leica..

[kelly_flanigan1]

Keith; Glen's photo may or may not be also shot with a digital

camera..How dark was the scene?......<BR><BR>Place my Noctilux and

asa 800 to asa 3200 film in my Leica M3; and world beyond todays

digital is there for me.......The digital cameras I use eat batteries

and dont always focus were I want them.....Plus the flash likes to go

off at the wrong times....Kelly

[jason_eitelbach2]

Boy there's nothing like a great "digital verses film" flame-war.

Will the film market stay the same,certaintly not, will the majority

of "snapshooting" be done with digital in the near future, probably,

will digital wipe film off the face of the earth, I don't think so.

Just as photgraphy didn't take the place of painting and color film

didn't destroy BW film, digital certaintly has and will change the

way we "image", but I don't think that is will or should completely

replace film. Digital is a great emerging media, which for some kinds

of shooting is superior to film right now, when I did newspaper work

I loved shooting digital, my deadlines could be longer, I didn't have

to spend hours in the darkroom etc. But I still could tell the

difference between my film and digital shots in the paper. I think if

Leica was savy about it, they could have greater success targeting a

niche market concerned more with the subtle image qualities than

trying to compete with a mass market digital "revolution". I mean

Leica has never been very successfull trying to compete head to head

with Nikon and Canon. They don't offer that kind of catch all

product. If Leica is going to come out with a digital camera it

should be a "10 megapixel digital M8" that takes all of the leica M

lenses and screwmounts with adapters and nothing less. They should

stop messing around with the best digital tech that 1998 has to

offer:) and really figure out a way to keep all this great glass

going into the future(if they want to do digital), while at the same

time keeping the film stuff robust. Anyway shoot on the media that

best suits the kind of photography that you do. All these different

kinds of medias is what makes photography great right. All these

different products and combinations is what allows us to be unique in

our imaging. I say find out what works for you and stop playing the

field :)

[fotografz]

One more time with feeling. My Leica IS digital: M camera, Tri-X,

4000dpi scanner. Claiming that your digital camera can't do this

or that, is old news. It was obsolete when you left the camera

shop where you bought it. A press-reporters' experience with

digital cameras is valid for about 3-6 months. What cost $5,000.

last year, costs half that now. This isn't happening on "Leica

Time" it's a "Rocket Sled" doubling its speed every year. Maybe

someone will adapt a digital box to take Leica glass. Leica

should've hooked up with the Fovan (sp?) folks. Now that

would've been something. Instead the Fovan sensor is in a

Sigma, and Leica hooked up with a paperweight manufacturer.

[Rob F.]

Glenn:

 

<p>

 

1. Nice picture.

 

<p>

 

2. Leica vs. Not Leica is only one dichotomy that could be

advanced. Was the Elmar the only right lens for the job? I'd have

brought my Summilux. Sensia 200? I'd have brought Provia 400. Or

Kodachrome 200?

 

<p>

 

And you'd have still gotten the shot if you'd used a Lux or Cron, or

Provia. You couldn't have done it with digital, though.

 

<p>

 

I think digital vs. film is in a different arena than take/make.

[dlegaspi]

i don't agree with Glenn with his views about users of digital and

non-digital cameras. but i can't agree more about his opinion on

images of third-world kids with their f*cking cows...

[nesrani]

You know, Glenn, it really doesn't matter what my attitude is when

taking pictures. I could be misting up my glasses and the viewfinder

with tears as I look at all those poor poor people, or I could be

grinning with delight at the thought of how good a picture of a leper

will look on-line. All that counts is the picture, whether it's any

good or not, and the only thing that determines that is the precise

moment my finger squashes down on the shutter release, the exposure

(usually underexposed, as we know) and the direction the camera is

pointed in. Click. And that is what I concentrate on when snapping,

not the heft and balance or silky feel of the camera, or my precious

emotions about other people's lives. All that stuff just has to

disappear, because photography is a purely visual thing which has

nothing to do with anything else than how good the picture is

visually. If you let other things get in the way, then the pictures

will suffer. None of that stuff is important when you're taking

pictures. And I think the digital/film divide is equally

inconsequential, within the limitations of either medium, of course.

 

<p>

 

Do I take or make pictures? I don't know and I don't care, the

distinction means nothing to me and I don't believe it ever meant

more to Weston, White and the others than a way to feel more worthy

than tourist snapshooters. In my case, I know that I'm always a

tourist in other people's lives when taking pictures, and nothing

will ever change that. I just try to do as good a job of my tourism

as I can.

 

<p>

 

Finally, I don't believe there's a single cow in any of my pictures.

[nesrani]

BTW, Glenn, I suspect that that picture could have been done just as

well if not better in digital; you're using a slow lens and the

digital could also have done something about the colour cast.

[pete_su]

Cameras don't make/take pictures. Photogaphers make/take pictures.

 

<p>

 

Ultimately it doesn't make much difference if the capture is digital

or film.

[MTC Photography]

<p>Heard this before:

digital will make paper go away-- "paperless office"<p>

typewriter will be the end of pen<p>

car will be the end of bicycle<p>

car will be end of locomotive<p>

airplane will be the end of ocean liner

Television will be the end of radio broadcast

..........................

[nesrani]

hydrogen bomb will be the end of the world

 

<p>

 

Ridiculous!

[hadji_singh]

Rob, didn't you once show us an underexposed picture of a cow

next to a truck? Maybe my memory is failing me.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In Engineering; Autocad is embraced to save time and paper.. Our

companies sales of paper is at an all time high; we have been around

since 1954.....In the old days draftsmen got it right with manual

drafting and only copies were made of good drawings... Today with cad

huge amounts of plots are made as check drawings....They do not like

to check drawings on the monitor..it is damn tuff to do...so they

plot out drawings as check drawings; and check these.. it is quicker

to check these plotted out check drawings....<BR><BR>So we order 1

ton of paper per week to supply the new system....This is

progress...Cad is better in most ways.....Several of our customers do

all their work by hand.. They are hardcore designers and builders...

They order 500 sheets of custom title block 30x42 vellum and draw

their custom house plans that look grand.....They are to scale... the

concept of scale is an afterthought in alot of cad

drawings...<BR><BR>Recently we printed out a goverment cad job

supplied in pdf form.. each of the 62 drawings were to a bastard

scale... we had to plot each one out and measure each one.. Then we

ratioed each drawing to force the scale to be correct....There were

about 20 different scales used on the project; both english and

metric too!...1/3 of the drawings had no dimensions; we had to

compare other drawings....The 30x42 drawings had to be opened in gray

scale; they had greyscale photos also in parts of the drawings..Some

of the text was only 1/642 inch high...The archtects on that job

should be shot for using text that small; it only drives the price of

printing up...To have to open a 30x42 drawing up at 600 dpi grey

scale is absurd....A 30x42 greyscale file at 600dpi is 433

megabytes..One needs a couple of GIG of ram to open files like this

fast.. Each PDF drawing took 22 to 30 minutes to open and convert to

a PCX or TIFF format for our Giant bond printer... I used two 1.1 Ghz

machines with 512Meg ram..The 512 Meg Ram is the max the hardware

will allow on these boxes.... It took 2 1/2 days to open; print;

measure the scale; and reprint the correct set......<BR><BR>What I

needed to do the job was a low cost 4 Ghz computer with 2.0 Gigs of

ram!<BR><BR>Then it only took 2 hours to make 5 sets of blueline

copies of the vellums we plotted..; using a 30 year old Dietzgen

blueline machine<BR><BR>The government sends out CD's to save time

and paper..The contactors demand that their drawings be to

scale...Thus the building's cost will be more; because the cost of

printing bastard files must be pasted on........Plus smaller

contractors cannot afford the printing cost; they end up not

bidding........On one local job no one even bid on it......Kelly

[kelly_flanigan1]

The smallest text size use was 1/64 inch high = 0.0156 inch =approx

0.4mm...; it was important text required for the drawings..Since the

Architect used a fancy font; we had to open the drawings at 600dpi;

at 500 or 400 it was not clear enough....this is a good example of

technology run incorrectly.....When I was at Burroughs Corporatation

decades ago; we had hard and fast standards for MINUMUM type size on

Engineering drawings..This was for good printing; readabliity; and

microfilming....today alot of cad drawings are crap....Kelly

[nesrani]

Hajj, yes but the cow was so underexposed it was invisible, I don't

know if that cownts.

[Allen Herbert]

APS Poloriod was the end for Lieca Photographers where have you

been,we are now just ghosts.

[Allen Herbert]

Leica...learn to spell.

[art_karr]

Folks:

 

<p>

 

I will ask the same question one more time. No on ever answers

it; and I suppose no one will.

 

<p>

 

Leitz makes great lenses, but the M bodies aren't that good,

now-a-days. What makes you think that they will survive? I don't

think that they will. This has to do with business; not with the

flight of the valkeryja.

 

<p>

 

Just wondered. I give them 5 years at most. Film will be here for

some time. Leitz bodies wont. Just my HO.

 

<p>

 

Art

[Allen Herbert]

What makes you think that they will survive? I don't think that they

will. This has to do with business; not with the flight of the

valkeryja

 

<p>

 

They have survived for 50 years the same question was asked 25 years

ago.Good photographers(as all craftsmen)will pay a premium for a

quality crafted product.We do not question whether Rolex will

survive.Quality is quality and we all want it if we can afford and

tat is what Leica is all about.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Art; why are Leica M bodies no good now-a-days? Kelly

[yongfei]

I guess Glenn is right. In "make", it is an "I" and "you" caring

relationship. "Take", it means I take something from you. Humanity,

humanity, humanity.

 

<p>

 

Also, make means trying to put everything together. Take means

getting a piece from the whole. So make is adding, take is

substracting.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Art writes:

 

<p>

 

>> Folks:

 

I will ask the same question one more time. No on ever answers it;

and I suppose no one will.

 

<p>

 

Leitz makes great lenses, but the M bodies aren't that good, now-a-

days. What makes you think that they will survive? I don't think

that they will. This has to do with business; not with the flight of

the valkeryja.

 

Just wondered. I give them 5 years at most. Film will be here for

some time. Leitz bodies wont. Just my HO. <<

 

<p>

 

Five years is something I don�t feel appropriate to describe the

phenomenon� Nobody can forecast exactly when digital imagery will

equal in capabilities the silver based one in picture taking and be

available at an affordable price to the general public. What I�m

convinced of is the silver based film market (particularly the

amateur market which is by far the widest one) will decline fast and

will be violently pushed to do so� So sometimes in the future, the

silver based film will be no more produced (just as wet collodion

and glass plates)� Comparative with Rollex mechanical watches are

totally irrelevant as these watches do not need anything (but some

maintenance) to work properly. A classical camera needs film to be

operated.

 

<p>

 

I�m sure a Leica M will properly work far long after the last silver

halide film roll will be produced. But it won�t produce an image

anymore. So it will be useless.

 

<p>

 

To say the M cameras aren�t that good these days is something though

I don�t fully agree with. They are certainly less well built than in

the seventies or earlier due to the use of some cheap material on

sensitive parts (�horror stories� like the one related to rewind

cranks and battery cover are far from unknown). But they essentially

work perfectly as ever.

 

<p>

 

The real point is despite the production M7 the technological gap

between M cameras and other 35 mm cameras is steadily widening and

some competitors are now entering the market which are not as

inferior as some Leica �fundamentalists� are trying to present them.

A very important question to raise here is the adaptability of an M

camera to an eventual �digitalisation�. And the answer is evident:

through keeping the outmoded and awkward loading of M cameras, even

in the new M7, it is hard to imagine any adaptation. So I think not

a single M camera including the present M7 will survive the general

digitalisation of imagery when it will happen (and it will actually

happen).

 

<p>

 

What is able to survive and would be a definite lost if they don�t

is the Leica M lenses. And these lenses are perfectly able to be

used with a full format high definition digital sensor.

 

<p>

 

What is (IMHO) lacking to Leica these �interim� days is a true high

end rangefinder 35 mm camera embodying what technology has brought

to small format cameras and is compatible with both the original

concept (so a real rangefinder with no AF) and the original use

(mainly spontaneous and snap shooting) of Leica rangefinders, which

means the choice between manual spot metering and AE matrix metering

instead of a highly centre weighed metering useable in manual or AE

lock mode. Both for practical use reasons and marketing reason (as

the price of an M7 body is hardly justifiable whatever Leica

fundamentalists can say).

 

<p>

 

This is the worst menace Leica has to face and may be where the

company is the most vulnerable.

 

<p>

 

Will the M system survive until the film disappear? It actually may,

due to a hardcore of customers it seems to rely on since the demise

of the M5: Mainly collectors-investors and Leica fans. But I wonder

if the last category will not progressively dwindle as time passes.

Real Leica fans know the real advantages of a SFRF camera and the

superiority of Leica lenses but are not blind to what other makes

can offer them. Despite all the so-called specialists �articles�,

I�m well placed to know as an Hexar RF user, a SFRF comparable (not

better nor worse as the shortcomings and advantages of each body

equilibrate) to an M7 is already available at less than half the

price of an M7 which can use most lenses in the Leica M range with

no problems. So, only �fundamentalists� will probably stay exclusive

addicts of M bodies. Will this new combination of collectors-

investors and �fundamentalists� be sufficient to maintain the M body

into production? I don�t know. Moreover, there are more second hand

older models on the market sold everyday than new ones I guess to

satisfy even these people.

 

<p>

 

To partially answer your question, I think you have to be aware of

the difference between �Leica fundamentalists� who swallow anything

to �prove� they are right choosing M bodies whatever the price to

pay and whatever their actual requirements and Leica fans (mostly

everyday users) who are liable to chose another body if they find it

as useful and cheaper, while preserving the essential when they need

the actual edge brought by Leica lenses.

 

<p>

 

As a final consideration, I think the survival of M body until film

actually disappears is more conditioned today by two events:

 

<p>

 

1 � The definitive demonstration of the compatibility of Leica lens

with Konica bodies (of which as a user I�m convinced of by practical

results)

 

<p>

 

2 � The eventual issue by a third party of a really high end fair

priced state of the art SFRF camera body which will have significant

advantages over the present M7 and be sold at an equal or inferior

price. Something which can be not so far away but, unfortunately,

not at Leica�s but on the blueprints at Konica�s. The Hexar RF body

requiring very few modifications to implement the necessary changes.

Including a built in future adaptation to digital use.

 

<p>

 

Friendly.

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

 

[art_karr]

<b> They have survived for 50 years the same question was

asked 25 years ago.</b> The Oldsmobile survived even longer;

where is it going.

 

<p>

 

I, mostly, agree with François P. WEILL. I don't think that digital

will kill the Leica bodies. I think that Leica will. The M bodies are

totally outdated [and their existance can no longer be justified

because of build quality; I sold my M6 because of the finder

clutter]. Sure, you can take great photos with them. You folks

demonstrate it every day. Then you folks are getting older by the

day; there are few in the new generation who will support Leitz

bodies.

 

<p>

 

On a business note [the five year estimate actually and finally got

a response] we will soon reach a time when the value of the

Leitz name will be greater than their profits. At that point, they will

be assimilated.

 

<p>

 

I agree with François; lets hope that they keep making the

lenses.

 

<p>

 

Art

[andy_piper2]

"...we will soon reach a time when the value of the Leitz name will be

greater than their profits. At that point, they will be assimilated."

 

<p>

 

"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." - Locutus, messenger

from The Borg, "Star Trek: the Next Generation"

 

<p>

 

I always thought the N90 and T90 looked like Darth Vader cameras - but

maybe they were Borg cameras instead.

[eliot]

"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." - Locutus, messenger

from The Borg, "Star Trek: the Next Generation" I always thought the

N90 and T90 looked like Darth Vader cameras - but maybe they were

Borg cameras instead.

 

<p>

 

Andy. I'm afraid you are using mixed metaphors, Star Trek and Star

Wars, in the same response. But let us all hope that Leica will

"live long and prosper" and "may the force be with them". And most

of all remember that "Having is not the same as wanting. It is not

logical, but it is often true."

 

<p>

 

Well, it is time for me to be deactivated.

 

<p>

 

-EMH (Emergency Medical Hologram)

[__]

I agree with François, but there's another problem: the dreaded CAT

scanning systems. What if they <i>do</i> get installed for carry-on

luggage?</p>We may be able to buy film locally, and be it only

because countries where only a minority can afford a western

lifestyle still provide some demand. But remember that 95 per cent

of all films sold are colour negative films of the 'consumer'

variety. If all the choice you have is Agfa Vista, Fuji Superia,

Kodak Gold, and three types of B&W film (the latter for $20 per

roll), is Leica still attractive?</p>Leica Microsystems, Leica

geodesics,... OK. But their sales can't keep Leica AG (maker of

cameras, binoculars, and slide projectors) alive because they are

independent companies.