The End of New Leica Film Cameras?

[Uhooru]

<p>Seems that they'll make them (film cameras) when they need them. Makes sense..</p>

[tom_higgins3]

<p>I think it's obvious by now that digital is inevitable where cameras are concerned (Jeff Spirer and a couple of others around here saw the writing on the wall quite a while before most), and while I certainly wouldn't tell anyone how to do their work, film use will continue to decline to the point where it becomes an expensive niche product - it's well on the way it seems. If that's the case, doesn't it make more sense to embrace digital now, learn the new techniques and equipment, embrace the strengths and limitations of what is by now the standard of photographic process? I understand that people get comfortable with their techniques and workflow, but it's WHAT you output is the point of all this, not HOW you do it, right?</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Hi Tom,</p>

<p>I'm tired of keeping up with the digital hardware and software. I came into computers late and I really don't enjoy post processing images. I take my 4 year old MacBook down to the Apple Genius bar or "One to One" when I'm having a problem and the first thing they want to do is "upgrade" my OS, iPhoto, or sell me a new computer with Aperture. I'm still running Tiger and some previous version of iPhoto and the truth is they don't know their way around these "old" technologies. Both times I've upgraded iPhoto, I have run into bugs and other problems. My photo library always gets screwed up and even though it's backed up, it takes hours to straighten things out. I don't call this fun and it's certainly not a hobby in my opinion. I guess I'm just an old dog that isn't interested in learning new tricks. I like taking pictures, but after releasing the shutter everything else is a big tedious digital/computer hassle, as far as I'm concerned.</p>

[tom_higgins3]

<p>Robert, I think you might be thinking about this the wrong way. When I was shooting film I had a workflow in place that worked for me, took me from shutter click to printed image with the least possible fuss. Once something was working I left it well alone. The same applies to digital photography, the trick is to think of your computer as your darkroom. I have a six year old imac running whatever OS it runs, I have photoshop CS2 on it which works for my leica m8 and canon raw files, and flexcolor (which is a previous, out-of-date incarnation of phocus) for my hasselblad files. When I print something on my 8 year old epson, it comes out the way i've envisioned it, because I calibrated the whole thing and then left it alone. It's not necessary for me to upgrade any of these things because they work just fine. The point of upgrades and updates from a manufacturers point of view be they software or hardware is, for the most part, to sell more product. If and when I do upgrade, I'm very aware that I'll have to upgrade EVERYTHING. And I really wouldn't use iphoto, a card reader is much better to import photographs with. Film cameras are for the most part, over. I have a contax T2, a Canon eos-1n, a nikonos mk2, and several others all gathering dust in a closet- they're not even really worth selling. If you can make your process between taking a shot and holding a print of that shot in your hand standardized and pain free to the point where you don't even think about it, it'll be a lot easier. Taking good photos is (and should be) the hard part, you don't need the distraction of a varying method. Just my 2c.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Thank you for the advice, Tom. My problem is that I'm computer challenged and must rely on other people to help me when something goes wrong or I a question. My first computer was a Dell and the help I got when something went wrong came from an unintelligible person from the other side of the world and then that was only for hardware support. I gave up on both Dell and Photoshop.</p>

<p>Apple one to one service, my MacBook and iPhoto were terrific 4 years ago. Now, at least here in Honolulu, when I try to make it to the Genius Bar, it's like navigating through a Rave, but at times I do need help with my computer and/or iPhoto and I have to turn somewhere. One to One Apple "service" is certainly not worth $100 a year anymore.</p>

[alex_stein]

<p>Robert, you bring up a good point. During the film era, photographers who weren't interested in processing or printing their own work had a much easier time of it - just drop the film off at a lab and tell them what you wanted. While labs these days are making huge efforts to court digital customers (digital kiosks, etc.), it's still a system designed around the user taking care of some of the process himself, even if that means simply downloading the photos to your PC and then uploading them again to a lab's site. But this seems to be the way of all things digital - listening to music went from buying a CD and putting it in the player to downloading music to iTunes, then creating playlists and then transferring everything to your iPod.<br>

By the way, Costco will of course continue to offer digital processing, meaning if you are able to get to one (I wasn't clear from your earlier post whether you were mailing film to Costco for processing or taking it in), then it's essentially the same thing, except you bring in your memory card instead of film.<br>

Anyway, if you're serious about becoming a collector, these next few years will be great ones for you. I predict a glut of former high-end 35mm cameras hitting the market as people try to reap the storied "retained value" of their Leicas before the general public realizes they've become, essentially, antiquities better suited for looking at than shooting through.</p>

[jason]

<p>the cameras out there will still be working in 50 to 100 years.Maybe a service.There will be people to do it.Contact via internet.Film esp B/W will be made.Processing may be a home affair..A hybrid of developing and next scanning rather than printing as we know it. i'm going that route soon. i prefer look of enlargements done in darkroom,but cannot tolerate the chemicals..So if Leica throw the towel in, they are the loser! So many people still want responsive fast and simple to use cameras. i use digital 90% but the small amount of film shoots ALWAYS has more sucessful shots.Right now using my Nikon-F's1971, Nikkor-MF lenses.Tired of soft,ethereal,flare shots from my old Leicas.<br>

Question.if i had the money to burn,i still would not buy the M9. The DSLR way ahead. Models change too quickly.Leica will be no different. i prefer my DIGICAM point and shoot.<br>

Te article may be genuine.Seeing shots of the Leica Factory did not give me the idea of manufacturing, but assembly of units from who knows where. Maybe the lenses.Seeing a Leica Microscope delivered once,the wrap paper in box all Chinese Newspapers..</p>

[frank_horn]

<p>Until a few months ago, you could get Kodak and Fuji 135 film at the local Wal*Mart. Now, it is Fuji only. Could it get to where you have to buy film from B&H, etc?</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>I guess I'm with Robert H on this. At the end of the day I want a camera and not a computer peripheral.</p>

<p>I really like E-6 as if the light was right when I pushed the button, my work was complete. Now if I buy a computer peripheral from Nikon or Canon or any other company that formerly produced cameras, I am obligated to buy a PC, Photoshop, LR, calibrated monitor, then sit on my ass.</p>

<p>So photography as being defined by digital just isn't fun to me. It was only a hobby so I just may ditch it.</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p> I shoot film and digital myself. I see them both as having their bright side. If film becomes to difficult to manage then I will just shoot digital. I have a D200 and it's very nice. It just takes a minute to manage the pictures in post processing. Just open the RAW files and tweak them a bit and save them in my external hard drive. Print out the ones I have a purpose for. Photography is mostly about getting out of the house and going places anyway and taking snaps of the family. The camera has taken me to a lot of beautiful places in my life. It's taking me to Sequoia National Park next month for 3 days and then off to Mono Lake for 1 day. </p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Leica denies the rumor, small but steady demand and daily production FWIW.</p>

<p>http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1729979/leica-we-producing-film-cameras</p>

 

[alex_stein]

<p>I think that statement is a bit of a dodge. I'm guessing the cameras produced "daily" are the special edition versions - Hermes, Jaguar, 300 year anniversary or whatever. If you're willing to shell out $7000, then yes you can buy a brand new M7 produced this year.</p>

<p>The real issue continues to be how dedicated hobbyists are to film, once access to cheap and relatively quick processing is removed. And whether that dedication withstands the thought of shelling out $1400 for a used M6 (for example). Others in this thread have mentioned processing their own and then scanning, which is where I am now. However, somewhere along the way you start to realize what a torturous route you're taking to what, eventually, will end up being a 720 pixel wide posting on your web gallery of choice. </p>

<p>There's definitely something to be said for the pleasures of using a top piece of engineering such as a Leica, but the importance of that feeling may begin to fade as it becomes more and more difficult and expensive to simply use the camera.</p>

[tom_higgins3]

<p>Alex, perfectly put- "The real issue continues to be how dedicated hobbyists are to film, once access to cheap and relatively quick processing is removed"- and this is the crux of it, it's being removed all the time, all over the place. why would any business that had to make the maximum amount of money from the maximum amount of clients have machines that necessitate chemicals and complications and extra expense when they don't need to? EVERYONE shoots digital.At some point in the future, shooting 35mm film is going to be as expensive and inconvenient as shooting 2 1/4, or even 4x5 is now. we're kinda there already </p>

[stindphoto]

<p>Are we not just getting what we want? I refer to the tittle of this post. This title will show up in google searches, maybe it is all people checking the list of messages in this forum will see.<br>

If we want film to stay alive and available, we need to communicate positively about film! We got Polaroid back, we got Agfa back, Ilford is still here, new film are coming out like Ektar in large format, Velvia is still here, I want Kodachrome back, but we got Rollei film thanks to digital. Isn't sales of large format film increasing? I called Leica in Germany, but did not get a definite answer when I mentioned the rumour about the end of film Leicas, instead the lady said: "There is also the M9" and I replied: "The M9 that you cannot deliver" which made her laugh and say I was right. By this I pointed someones attention inside the Leica organisation to the rumour. Who can ask the Leica heads? <br>

Shooting film has never been cheaper when you look at the prices for used film cameras. <br>

Almost 15 years ago I was told by a dealer, that the Kodak film I had come in to order in bulk, did not exist. And I was told this in a very arrogant way, with the guy at the desk saying to another employee: "This film never existed, did it?" "No" he said. Well - two days later I presented the jerk with the non-existing film I sourced elsewhere. Ignorance versus reality versus attention can lead to strange things. <br>

I have seen a lot of beautyfull B/W work from M8s and M9s. But how many rolls of B/W film could you buy, have processed and scanned for the price difference between a used M6 and a M9 (that only a few people so far got)? And I will not start ranting about the absurdity of adding digitally generated grain effects to make the digital shots look right... Neither will I mention that I'm not a member of the local photo club, as the club demands exif-data printed out and attached to all paper photos entered...<br>

The more we talk about "film is dead" the more we kill film! No film means no film camerea from Leica, Voigtlander, Hasselblad, Alpa etc. <br>

Bring out your film cameras, shoot film and tell everyone why film is great! That's what I do when I'm not spending my time updating firmware on my 6 DSLR's, installing larger harddrives, upgrading graphic cards, doing colour profiling and feeling helpless when I ralise that PhotoShop raw plug-ins are not backwards compatible. This is actually unbelievable!! Buy a new digicam, and your PhotoShop is totally obsolete if you want to shoot RAW (DNG is better in this respect - cadeau to Leica for choosing DNG instead of some proprietary format).<br>

I have to say it again: Bring out your film cameras, shoot film and tell everyone why film is great!</p>

[stindphoto]

<p>Moderator - please remove this entry - sorry - for some reason my post came double. </p>

[david finch]

<p>I have an M3, a IIIf, a IIIa, and a bunch of Leica lenses, hoods, finders, etc. -- all bought used over the past twenty years. At today's prices there is no reason (apart from vanity) to buy anything from Leica's film line brand-new. For that matter, there's no reason to buy anything from Leica's digital line new or used, unless not-quite-first-rate electronics and outrageous cost/18-month benefit curves appeal to you. Leica excels at making superb lenses and mechanical cameras. The lenses offer few advantages when attached to digital cameras, and the mechanical cameras offer no advantages at all over clean used products. I find it hard to believe Leica will survive the next decade without radical change.</p>

<p>That said, film itself is far from dead. B&W is relatively cheap to manufacture and can be developed by anyone anywhere, so I imagine there will always be a market for it, even for 35mm. Professionals still use medium-format for color and B&W when they want picture quality unobtainable with a digital camera, at least one costing less than a Honda Civic. (I suspect even a Leica S equipped with an $8,000 lens can't beat the scannable image you could make with a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder available for around $750 at KEH.) And of course there will always be large format, which remains, among other things, the only medium through which to take a first-class portrait or landscape photo. You might end up having to send your exposed color film to some cranky artisan in Oregon, but it will be a long time, I think, before the film, in several emulsions, won't be available somewhere on the Internet. </p>

<p> </p>

[alex_stein]

<p>David -</p>

<p>I agree, though I would point out my original point still stands: Leica cameras for shooting 35mm film aren't as attractive an investment as they have been in the past, now that cheap and easy processing is going out the window. Yep, we can process our own B&W and send out E6 or C-41 film, and I doubt that will go away completely anytime soon. But the expenses are starting to mount up.</p>

<p>When I owned a Leica, I made a point of shooting at least a roll of film a week, whether or not I found anything particularly worth shooting. It seemed insane to spend what I did on the camera and then let it sit and gather dust. I'd hope the majority of M owners did the same. With Costco processing and even minimal scans, that's was about $150/year on processing costs, and I'd be looking at scans on my PC within hours of finishing a roll. Now I have to pay for shipping to and from a lab in addition to inflated processing rates. That $150/yr. can quickly climb to over a thousand. Which leaves me with the following choices: shoot less, shoot black and white only (and try to keep up with processing everything myself), or finally admit the inevitable and stop shooting 35mm. I think I might be choosing the third option. I still love my Hasselblad, Mamiya, and Pentax MF cameras, and am willing to pay the cost to send the rolls out for proper processing and scanning, but it's getting harder and harder to justify owning 35mm equipment, which I always viewed as a "fun" size, saving any serious work for medium format.</p>

<p>That's just me, of course.</p>

[david finch]

<p>Alex:</p>

<p>You're right about the costs of sending out 35mm film to specialized lab if you like to take a lot of pictures. Where 35mm still shines (and will retain its value, at least artistically) are old-school shots taken with first-rate antique Leitz, Zeiss, and Nikkor RF lenses on slower silver-rich B&W film or (now that Kodachrome is gone) a color film along the lines of Ektar 100. For everyday stuff or to meet your client's technical requirements, shoot digital. But there are amazing things that can be done with a IIIf with an Elmar 50/3.5 or a Contax IIIa with a Biogon-Opton 35/2.8 -- things you just can't do with a D700, no matter how much you might like messing around on Photoshop. </p>

<p>Even in the old days, 35mm could only take you so far. The format was too small. Leica never made camera/lens combination that could take better picture than an "entry-level" Rolleicord, just as a Crown Graphic with a Kodak lens would blow away any Hasselblad (and shoot faster, too, once you mastered the Grafmatic holder). Leica was fine for Cartier-Bresson but would have been a disaster for someone like Arbus or Lange. And so forth. You picked your format and equipment to match your style and the type of picture you wanted to take. That's still true, and that's what will keep 35mm alive. </p>

[christopher_moss]

<p>This rumour first surfaced a couple of months ago, after the Asahi article was noticed. It quickly died out after denials from Leica, but has come back to life after Mike Johnston wrote about it - his readership is large. Leica have again denied it, as in this article and video of a factory tour showing film cameras being made:<br>

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1729979/leica-we-producing-film-cameras<br>

So how to explain Dr Kauffman's remarks? It might have been as simple as the mistranslation/misreporting of his speech. I think it entirely possible that in 2009 Leica stopped the <em>development</em> of film cameras, but not the <em>production</em>. Such a substitution would fit with his next remark about the cost of developing a new film camera, and that they would only be competing against themselves.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>After further investigation, I have succeeded in only coming up with more antidotal evidence that what is stated in the <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/08/a-grand-85-years-it-was.html">Johnson article</a> and <a href="http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201008220143.html">Akagi article</a> are true. In fact Mike Johnson's words were eerily recently repeated almost verbatim in a conversation with a German tourist I met here in Hawaii. She was retired from Leica Solms and told me when I queried her on the subject. I am paraphrasing, but her English was really good and I think this is very close to what she actually said. "I was under the impression that we were working on old new stock for the last 2 years", referring to the parts required to assemble the Leica M7 and MP, as I understood her. That begs the question, where were the parts manufactured in the first place? I'm kicking myself for not asking at the time, however, I did asked her that very question in an email I sent recently, but have not received a response from her. I find that intriguing, since she was chatty up until that point, and seemed delighted to correspond with my wife and me in Hawaii. Of course, now I have my own suspension as to the answer. Say it ain't so!</p>

<p>Anyway, I've heard from another source I consider reliable that Leica AG was/is having difficulties staying afloat. Ending the film camera line, or even temporarily interrupting it probably makes good business sense or they wouldn't do it. After all, they are not in business out of some altruistic regard for Leica film purists. If I was Warren Buffet, I would save the film camera line and return the factory to Wetzlar.</p>

<p>I've got a pretty good start on a Leica collection and I think that will be one of my new hobbies. I've already started on vintage Nikon gear, some of which I bought new over 40 years ago.</p>

<p>I just hope the Leica camera company can stay afloat.</p>

[frederick_muller]

<p>Hi ... a number of people seem very concerned that CostCo is discontinuing film processing. I would have thought there would be any number of C-41 one-hour labs available, or other independent labs. Is film processing becoming that scarce?</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Film cameras are like the housing market. If too many are dumped at once into the used market (as they were with the digital explosion) then it does not make much (any) financial sense to make new ones. Cosina survives because they make a cheap alternative to the still expensive used Leica M.</p>

[frank_horn]

<p>A 36-exp roll of Kodak Portra from B&H was $7.50 a year ago. It now is $9.50! If you want to get people out of film-- just raise the price!</p>

[teneson]

<p>If Leica is having difficulty staying afloat, then going dormant for an unspecified amount of time is a good move. They should be contemplating some sort of merger with Cosina-Voigtlander or other maker. I say CV, because their lead man is dedicated to rangefinder technology. I trust their management and production philosophy. We hold Mr. Kobayashi in the highest regards.<br />The M7 Leica continues to be in-demand, even though it's well over 7 grand in U.S. dollars. Not a lot of us can afford a camera like that, and the options are the dslrs. Film rangefinders are a niche market, as are view cameras. There won't be a lot of people buying them, but the demand is there. The demand for film, I think, will plateau, but will not disappear (to the digital zealots' dismay). I am witnessing many young photographers gravitating towards film, but that's for another thread :)</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>KR wrote recently: "My local lab, North Coast Photo (NCPS) has been getting so much film to process that they need to buy more Loersch 35mm slide mounts."</p>

<p>Because of the heightened demand in film use, this same lab recently added more machines and space to handle their film processing volume. </p>