Of Leica M and steam engines

[emile_de_leon9]

I've often wondered why the hell photo companies want to stress

digital as there is so much money to be made off of film, chemicals,

paper, etc. This alone will keep film alive I think in the end.

People spend exorbitant amounts of money on old cars, old trains

(Lionel, Marklin,etc.),old houses, antiques and all the other older

things you can think of.Why?? Quality and nostalgia, not to mention

that in a complex world many people gravitate towards the things

that have meaning,longevity and purpose. Why the hell would someone

buy a 12x20 LF camera and pay upwards of $5,000.00 bucks without a

lens and wait a year or more for delivery for essentially a wooden

box with metal fittings? Life is to be lived. If I want to watch TV

I will. But make no mistake about it, TV it is a sleep machine. When

I pick up a camera I photograph to reach internally a more real

state of mind and being. I wake up. Like meditation. Or like any

real activity such as music. I dont get that with a digital. If the

film companies stopped making film you would have an even bigger

return to LF photography with glass plates. And the corners would be

better.If Leica reissued the DR Summicron I would be the first in

line to buy one. Logic dosn't enter here, only heart. As far as the

steam engines are concerned one can only marvel at their beauty. If

they could be made more cheaply I'm sure they still would be around.

Fortunatly Leica allows the ordinary person to own and use something

extraordinary, and not have to be a millionaire. Leica is on the

right track with their M camera. A thing of beauty, simplicity, and

power.

[art_karr]

Emile:

 

<p>

 

I read your post with some interest. Let me guess; even though

you have an MSN address, you are not Bill Gates. Am I right ? :<)

 

<p>

 

Art

[emile_de_leon9]

Art,

I'm a musician turned businessman. In these kind of things(

business) I think that psychology as related to quality drives the

entire issue.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Roger writes:

 

<p>

 

>> FPW -- i doubt if any of the basic component parts -- screws,

gears, bits of metal -- are themselves patented. <<

 

<p>

 

If a screw or gear is made to a standard which is currently

available there is a chance it is not patented, but if it is a

specific part then it is patented just like any automotive part (at

least until it fells into the public domain).

 

<p>

 

>> the overall device is what the patent covers. you can't patent

basic mechanical parts unless there is something very unique about

them. even if these items were subject to patent protection, no

machine shop would worry about fabricating them and leica would

never prosecute such duplication to repair an otherwise unrepairable

item (the premise is the leica can't supply the part).<<

 

<p>

 

From the present experience it seems Leica is still able to repair

very old cameras itself but at a very expensive cost� Do you really

think they will relinquish this source of revenue easily ?

 

<p>

 

>> and as i said before, a parts camera or two is all you need to

keep an old leica going anyway. don't know what was wrong with your

m5, but it COULD have been fixed at some price. <<

 

<p>

 

Of course it could have been� The question is not related to this

point� But the cost to fix it was superior to the one of another one

in mint condition� Nobody will dare to make a camera fixed under

these conditions. And when the cost of the repair will again be

beyond the price of another working camera then the body will be a

museum piece� I�m a USER Roger, I�m not a collector� And today even

a collector will think twice before making such a piece repaired

when he can actually obtain another one in mint condition for the

same price. I needed to have a rangefinder M mount camera

operational and had no time to wait for the right second hand body

that�s why I bought (after extensive testing) a new Hexar RF for

about the same price I had to pay for the kind of M5 I wanted to

buy. I guess very few of us will dare to repair a �user�s state�

camera for the price of a mint second hand one.

 

<p>

 

>> as for film, it will be around for a long time. think how few

people use 8x10 sheet film (a few thousand -- maybe ten to fifteen)

worldwide, and yet it is still widely available from suppliers large

and small. <<

 

<p>

 

As for the suppliers, Roger you live in a happy country, here this

sheet films should be available on special order only. Now you

simply forget the fact the emulsion used for these sheet films are

exactly the same used on some 35 mm, 120, 4�x5�, 13x18 films and are

made by the same kind of plants. So this is only a variation is

related to format� Hardly a big technical problem.

 

<p>

 

>> how many years until 35mm demand dwindles to such low levels --

twenty, thirty ?? film is not that hard to make -- a number of small

firms make their own stock -- you don't need a giant like kodak to

support the industry. you mention some 18th century emulsions in

your last post as examples of things that have gone by the boards. <<

 

<p>

 

Again Roger I don�t know how long it will take but what I know is

when something is produced in limited number by plants relying more

on manpower than robotized high tech lines it is likely to be more

and more expensive and see its quality become irregular at best.

Then where will you process this film? For B&W, if the environmental

regulations let you buy the necessary chemicals there probably be no

problem (at least for a while) but for color films it is another

question� Just explain me how you will resolve this problem when all

commercial labs will be closed ?

 

<p>

 

>> it may surprise you to learn that places lie the photographers

formulary still can supply these old materials. indeed, with the

onset of digital they are more popular than ever. bottom line: it

will be a long time 'till 35mm film disappears. even when it does

people will be able to freeze their own stocks that will last ten

years or more (i recently used some deep freeze tri-x for a banquet

camera that had a 1981 expiration date. the fog base was higher than

usual, but it still worked). stop worrying about film!!! it will be

here until you're grey. heck -- several million film ased cameras

were sold just last year.<<

 

<p>

 

As for the 19th (not 18th) century emulsions, they were all

orthocromatic which means you were liable to prepare them under

appropriate light rays and they were extremely slow by today�s

standard. So they were relatively easy to prepare yourself. Try to

do the same with a 35 mm panchromatic emulsion including cutting the

support and making the appropriate perforations� I guess you won�t

succeed � These are mandatory industrial products.

 

<p>

 

Of course you can stock freeze films. You even can, protect them to

a large extent of any fog by coating your freezer with lead plates�

And then ?

 

<p>

 

The real point is what will be the interest to do such things when

digital will reach the definition and other capabilities of silver

halide based films?

 

<p>

 

Do you realize the economics of the solutions you propose? For

99,9999999% of the photographers they won�t even think of doing

that�

 

<p>

 

My only concern about film is to worry about its availability as

long as it will bring you a quality superior to digital process.

What will happen to the film thereafter doesn�t really bother me.

 

<p>

 

I�m sure that I�m more representative here of the average user than

you are.

 

<p>

 

That�s why I don�t consider a valid argument to defend the Leica M

(in fact mainly its unjustifiable price) to say it will last 30 or

40 years (which, by the way is IMHO very improbable if used by a pro

or semi-pro). It would be a valid argument if this body was ready

for a transition to the new technology which is not the case.

 

<p>

 

Besides, as a user I don�t care if a body is able to stay

operational for such a long time if it means it won�t be able to

take the pictures I want to take because using a 50 year old

technology. My SFRF equipment has a place inside a more important

combo. I know where and when I can use it to obtain the best results

and consequently, where and when it could have been used with better

chance of success if it has this or that feature. I need this

equipment as it is today nevertheless, but I�ve found a solution

which is cheaper and will certainly keep working until a better,

newer solution appears be it silver based or digital�

 

<p>

 

I�m sure the eventual market for a high end user oriented SFRF is

much broader and profitable than the present market targeted by

Leica. I can understand their policy only linking it to sound

advertisement through a famous (but totally non profitable) product

and the choice not to invest in modern lines and deal with a

technology they�ve not the capabilities to master themselves. But

this is by no mean a realistic policy if one wants to make money

with such a product. It explains why this department is allowed to

remain in the red. But this product is very vulnerable and likely to

be withdrawn from the market if the directorate of the group owning

Leica AG decides it costs too much for the side benefits it brings.

 

<p>

 

I think a lot of leicaphiles here are blind to this aspect and still

biased against anything non-Leica. They think the situation is

unchanged but in fact it has changed since about two years. And I

don�t think the side benefits of producing the M body will be as

efficient when compared to the costs of production because its

market will be more restraint now than it was before. As a French I

know too well what is the usual policy of the LVMH group. They won�t

hesitate a second to close down the plants if they consider they are

no more useful. This is why I think it would be better to push Leica

AG to modernize once and for all and exit from the red if we want

this production to continue.

 

<p>

 

I may be wrong, but I think most of my friends here are very

optimistic� Perhaps too optimistic.

 

<p>

 

Friendly

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

 

<p>

 

 

 

[bobtodrick]

Francois, firstly let me say that you bring some of the most

intelligent arguments to this issue that I've seen. And in the end

you may be right. Of course in the end I (or others may be right).

What I think you are missing is that Leica doens't have to be (and to

me doesn't strive to be) everything to everybody. They have a niche

market that they fullfill and make a bit of money at it. Not a lot

mind you, (and to everyone who says the annual reports are of doom

and gloom, it's often to a small companies best advantage to look

like it's not doing that great on the surface), but enough. I think

the whole philosophy behind Leica is a small market, exceptional

quality camera/lens, and untill that philosophy changes they will

continue on as they do. B&W film is easy to make, and in fact there

are many companies making it without a large outlay of manpower and

expense (relatively speaking of course, I can't whip it up in my

basement). Color, especially transparency film is an other matter

entirely and may go by the wayside sooner than we realize. But as

long as their are companies like Leica, Wista, Zone IV(Calumet) and a

host of others there will be black and white film. Some of the 19th

century emulsions may be difficult to get where you live, but a quick

perusal of Large Format magazine lists at least 3 places where I can

get platinum and paladium printing materials, all shipped within the

week. But you do ask a fair question. In 30 years will Leica

survive as they are? Will Ferrari? Rolex? Mont Blanc? Companies

like these exist because there are still many people who don't buy

into the cheap consumerism of today. I deal in my business with a

lot of schools. 8 years ago they were racing to buy Canon Zapshots

(remember those) and HP printers. Last week it was announced that

CONVENTIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY is being added, for the first time ever, to

the grade 8 curriculum as a required course (photography was always

an option). Seems the feedback from many young people is that they

get enought 'Sony Playstation' at home and want to learn something

'real' (a teachers words, not mine). I think conventional

photography has a bit of life left in her yet.

[joe_buechler]

<i>Analog instruments provided they give you a different sound (for

whatever

technical reason) or (and) are more pleasing to use by the musicians

and

are not dependant on a third party liable to disappear to operate are

totally

different things.</i>

<p>They are a close analogy to the steam engines, because manufacture

of

each was (or is)  dependent on off-the-shelf parts which can go

out

of production. In the case of analog synths, the famous CEM chips are

a

good example. This is a much better comparison than your film

argument.

Film is a consumable, used by the end user, not an off-the shelf part

used

in manufacturing.

<p>Digital cameras, by contrast, use what's quickly becoming the

ultimate

worrisome consumable, energy. Perhaps you are aware of events

currently

happening in central Asia? The cost of this consumable, not only in

terms

of money but also in terms of human misery caused by war and

repression,

may be too high. Film may easily become the only acceptable consumable

to use.

<p><i>But to take the part of your comparative which is nearer to the

Leica

M problem, the �sound� of the M is given mainly by the lenses and the

RF

concept, not the body.</i>

<p>I can't agree with a single word of this. The lenses are a

relatively

unimportant part of the Leica "sound", especially if you shoot

hand-held

like most Leica M users do. How is the RF concept different from the

body?

<p>Joe

[art_karr]

Joe:

 

<p>

 

<b> I can't agree with a single word of this. The lenses are a

relatively unimportant part of the Leica "sound", especially if you

shoot hand-held like most Leica M users do. How is the RF

concept different from the body? </b>

 

<p>

 

While I am not completely sure what you are talking about, I will

take a shot. This is given with this exception; I have no idea what

the Leica "sound" means.

 

<p>

 

The point has to do with the R & D investment in the Leica M

bodies. I have an M3 and an M6TTL [or did]. As far as I could tell,

the shutters were the same and the M3 had a better finder.

Neither has what I would call a reliable shutter. I also have

another mechanical camera; it is a Nikon F2. It still works as well

as the day I bought it. So much for quality.

 

<p>

 

The point is that Nikon didn't stay with the F2 body; they

developed more modern technology. Leitz hasn't made that

development investment. Modern technological development is

not evil, and the M7 isn't modern. There are now other bodies

[R2 and Hexar] that will serve my purpose. I am sure that there

are more to come.

 

<p>

 

Does that mean that I don't use Leica in 35 mm? No; the 35

asph is the "sweetest" lens that I have used. Still, it is not likely

that I will be using it on an M for many years. I stick with my 5 year

prediction. That is, the Leica name will be on a camera produced

by another company. ;<)

 

<p>

 

Art

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Joe,

 

<p>

 

I think Art has entirely undrstood what I meant about Leica M bodies.

 

<p>

 

Now about energy, Let all that environmentalists'prefabricated

nightmares die... Nuclear fusion (no more fission and its dangerous

byproducts) will take care of that sooner than you'll probably think.

 

<p>

 

The world can't survive and develop itself without more and more

energy... And you need energy to produce films. Petrol has replaced

coal, coal had been replaced by nuclear fission and nuclear fission

wil be replaced by fusion...

 

<p>

 

Now about the sound analogy: only the Leica lenses will give you a

certain fingerprint which is characteristic of the M photography.

This is by far the best and the most up to date part of their

products. When I use them on my Hexar RF it is impossible for the

viewer to tell this shot wasn't taken with a M body.

 

<p>

 

Back in 50's, there were a lot of Leica copies around, some of these

bodies were not really inferior to the famed Leica originals, but

the M mount was still a proprietary things of Leitz AG.

 

<p>

 

So if you wanted to use these lenses (which were then as today the

best) you were complied to use an M body. This is no more the case

today. Leica is facing competitors again who have no more this

handicap: the M mount is in the public domain.

 

<p>

 

The small format rangefinder concept is not the property of Leica,

by accident it has been assimilated to Leica when other brands

disappeared or turned to SLR proiduction only (the Nikon F was

derived from a prototype Nikon rangefinder camera).

 

<p>

 

To take once again your comparative with music instruments, to speak

of Leica as an equivalent to SFRF is to speak of a piano calling it

a Pleyel or to call a guitar by whatever famous manufacturer's name

you want... It is a term of abuse.

 

<p>

 

The only thing which really pertains to Leica is the subtle and

specific balance which they use in their lenses to obtain a specific

kind of imagery and the technology they developed to have lenses

properly working wide open at very wide aperture (a consequence of

one of the most important advantage of the rangefinder camera,

which, provided the rangefinder is correctly aligned, permits you to

use these wide apertures effectivly).

 

<p>

 

What I am sure of is the body is very accessory their. And no USER

will really care what is the trade mark on it if it offers him more

opportunity to use those delightful lenses.

 

<p>

 

Friendly.

 

<p>

 

François