kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 27, 2002 Share Posted May 27, 2002 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 27, 2002 Share Posted May 27, 2002 <BR><img src="http://it.geocities.com/early_135/touristmultiples.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 27, 2002 Share Posted May 27, 2002 <BR><BR><img src="http://it.geocities.com/early_135/touristmultiple.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 27, 2002 Share Posted May 27, 2002 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich_fowler Posted May 27, 2002 Share Posted May 27, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 27, 2002 Share Posted May 27, 2002 Rick; which link on "Scanning Medium Format Images by Robert Monaghan" is the topic you mention? Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 27, 2002 Share Posted May 27, 2002 Found it! Cool article! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yongfei Posted May 27, 2002 Share Posted May 27, 2002 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich_fowler Posted May 28, 2002 Share Posted May 28, 2002 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, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lone ranger Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msitaraman Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Pawn-shops? Where,where?! 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