The Future of Leica?

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Leica's best bet for a secure digital future is to partner with a company that groks the appeal of good looking in-camera JPEG processing. Leica's fanbase are film fans. They want photos that look like film photos. That's Ricoh or Olympus. Nobody else in the industry gets it like Olympus and Ricoh.</p>

<p>There's also an unexploited - or underexploited - niche in the CX format that Leica could explore for an affordable "Leica" marque system camera. Nikon's Series 1 is underwhelming because Nikon is either too clueless or too conservative to understand what Olympus and Ricoh grok - many photographers, even serious amateurs, want good looking in-camera JPEGs with creative options. The only other CX format camera is the upcoming Sony RX100, which ain't a mirrorless system camera that could be used with M-mount glass.</p>

<p>But it ain't gonna happen because I'm beginning to doubt anyone at Leica actually reads interweb forums or has a clue about what might actually sell.</p>

<p>So the future of Leica may be the Ricoh GXR A12 M-mount. With a Hermes Orange replacement grip panel, and red circle badge.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I think that Leica sales will drop in the future. It's all about the pretty box as the digital insides are pretty much the same as any other camera. Currently the digital insides of the Leica are getting long in the tooth. Also the longevity of the camera is in question. Will they work in 25 years. Will they communicate with our computers and will you even be able to buy a battery for it. </p>

[carbon_dragon]

Leica has shown that with a well funded dedicated following who will buy new products no matter how much they cost,

they can keep going. I guess Leica will go on as long as those people keep buying. It's a shame that more people can't

benefit from that gear. In a sense, the mirrorless cameras like the NEX vindicate the small camera, interchangeable

concept but on a more affordable price point.

[luis_rives]

<p>Many responses so far have questioned the well founded concern to be able to access digital files in the far future. This is a real problem and more serious than most people suspect now. Another is the maintenance of digital storage over the long term. Without a doubt hard disks will fail. How many photographers have a real plan for backup, digital filing, and long term storage? These are the most serious issues of digital photography that the vast majority of people don't think about. Just think, all the snap shooters that in the past could have pulled out an album of photo and a box full of negatives. These people have no idea about digital archiving, which means that it is only a matter of time before all there treasured digital family photo will disappear. These are all non-existant issues with film, and the main reason why I, though only an amateur photographer, only shoot film. When digital photography was being trumpeted as the greatest thing since apple pie, these were dirty issues that no one wanted to discuss or consider. Leica digital cameras are no different in this regard, so I guess I will stick with my M3s and M4s.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Well, not non-existant, but less. Film fades with sunlight or time. Colors shift. Negatives can be stolen or burn in a fire or

die from mold. But indifferent care with negatives usually results in a printable negative. With digital, it can all be gone in a

second. I have had multiple hard drive crashes and have backups, but whether that would be sufficient depends on the

particular disaster.

 

 

I have another thread going on photo.net talking about film. I shoot mostly digital but I've been taking out my old film

cameras and running some film through them. Not only does digital have substantial advantages of course, but

NOWADAYS, those advantages are event sharper with no-place to bring film to develop and lack of availablility of film

and darkroom stuff. For me, I have more film in my freezer and fridge than I'll EVER use in my whole lifetime. Even if I

were shooting film exclusively, I have probably a years worth.

[rossb]

<p> I think that with film the negative provides one additonal link to keeping your pictures around over time. At least if you scan your photos. You have the negative, print and also the external hard drives that you may be using. I just save my shots as jpegs. I have a DSLR and at first saved a lot of files as RAW but after a while I just stopped doing that. They are in my external but I suppose one day they will not open which will not be that big a deal as they are also saved as jpeg. Computer stuff changes over time however I bet jpeg is a sure thing for quite a long time yet. Nothing is forever however. A couple generations and most likely nobody will want to look at out photos anyway.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>There is always the possibility of having negatives made of your prized digital images. I am thinking of doing that with some of my digital B&W images so I can use my darkroom to create prints from them. Direct digital transfer to inkjet printers is another way to "archive" your digital images for 100 or 200 years, depending upon the quality of inks and paper used.</p>

[damon_fernandes]

<p>Flame warning: The Contax G2 with the 21mm Biogon lens is better than any Leica combination. ToCad fixes them, and film is, thank God, still cheap. Total cost to you: about $1,000.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>"Better" in what sense, Damon? Shutter release feel? Manual focusing? Manual film advance/rewind in case the batteries die? Compatibility with M-mount lenses, including those from Cosina/Voigtlander?</p>

<p>Also, that gets only a 3/10 on the troll/flame scale. Not nearly subtle enough.</p>

[damon_fernandes]

<p>Haha. Thanks Lex. By better I meant the final image that I get from the combination. I also like the ease of film loading and rewinding. It is a real joy to use. Granted, without batteries the Leica wins because I would not be able to get any shot at all! So, I apologize for the word better...it is of course subjective. I will restate: I like my G2 with the 21mm lens and I recommend it highly.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

I have a lot of respect for Zeiss, and I used a Contax RTS I and III for years, but I always hated the G2 and G1. I could

never figure out what I was focusing on, I didn't like the control layout. Great camera I'm sure, but certainly not better in

any way my brain can fathom.

 

Making a film copy should be as easy as a film recorder if you can find any of those these days.

[aplumpton]

<p>David, there is a company in Denver that has the Kodak film recorder (or another, I'm not sure which) and which offers a copy service of digital to film. Agree with Lex and you that while the Contax is a good camera, and has some excellent optics, it has a lot of downsides as well, and not similar enough to the Leica RF model to be competition to it. The Leica stands pretty much alone, and hard to better in my opinion. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Damon, that's one of those situations where a bit of gear just feels right for us regardless of other considerations. Good to know ToCad still supports the Contax - I was impressed with their support of an inexpensive Slik tripod I bought in the 1990s.</p>

[anuarpatjane]

As long as the photographic process remain as important as the visual result, Leica will keep making M

bodies. Try taking photos with a Nex 7, a X100 or a Nikon D800, when you click and manipulate those

modern cool looking bodies you get great pictures out of them, but it doesnt feel like you are manipulating

a totaly manual and perfectly balanced beautifull masterpiece. So if you have never shot with a Leica, you

are fine and safe using those cameras. Once you try a Leica, you cant stop, and everything you use after

it, will feel uncomplete, so eventualy you will end up searching for one., no matter how expensive it is or

how hard it is to get it.