Okay, enough is enough. It's time for Leica to step up to the digital plate & play ball.

[._._z]

Kevin, that article in today's NY Times article can be seen in the light of...

 

http://www.quicken.com/investments/news_center/story/?story=NewsStory/barrons/20030115/SB104267100642183744.var&column=P0DST

 

"digital photography continues to cannibalize sales of film and paper. In the first nine months of 2002, net worldwide sales dropped 5%"

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/84325.html

 

"Digital photography contributed to a 3 percent decline in U.S. film sales in 2002 and will lead to a drop of about 5 percent this year, Kodak's chairman, Daniel Carp, said."

 

http://newsobserver.com/business/story/2125521p-2022310c.html

 

"Chairman and chief executive Daniel Carp pointed to continued soft film sales, partly from the rise of digital cameras, the threat of war with Iraq, terrorism and continued economic weakness. . . . Kodak controls about two-thirds of the U.S. film market, but profit has been pinched by falling prices and a plunge in film sales dating to August 2000."

 

http://www.quicken.com/investments/news_center/story/?story=NewsStory/barrons/20030115/SB104267100642183744.var&column=P0DST

 

"Kodak's US film sales in November fell 8% year over year -- much better

than Fuji's 20% decline."

[kevin m.]

Jeez, I just noticed.....the Canon digital camera in the Luminous Landscape article is actually BIGGER than the Pentax 67!

[joseph_barbano]

I like and use film cameras, but also have a Digilux Zoom. Unless something dramatic happens within digital or film technology, or the availability of film changes, then I'll continue with my Leicas. But I'm a realist. I have recently wrestled with buying an M7 but have waited to see what will happen with Leica and their product line. Ironically, although it rubs many people on this forum, Leica may not survive unless they can transition to providing high-end digital cameras.

Finally, there's alot of oversensitivity on this forum to the mere mention of "digital" in any discussion. Well get over it. It's no worse than the inane topics such as "Lost my tab on my Summilux", "What would you do if you were in charge at Leica?", "What's the perfect lens?", or my favorite, "35MM, Summicron Version 1,2,3,or 4 or Summilux Pre-ASPH or ASPH"?

[fotografz]

If Leica brought out a digital M I'd jump on it like a bird on a

worm. But I would also still shoot my film Ms, just like I do with

my MF cameras now by just changing backs. They are different

and it's as simple as that for me. Especially for B&W.

 

Some think computer techniques can be added to video and

digital imagery to simulate film. I work in the "film" industry and

the highly evolved post techniques to add the "look of film" are

awful and seen as a joke by film makers,art directors and even

clients. The post programs and techniques for digital are even

worse. Those who do not know the difference are the masses

who will eventually kill film as a mainstream choice. Mom and

Pop, as well as those who can't see the difference, are the ones

who will make film a speciality item.

[norman_mayersohn]

Oy! The D word. Again.

 

Nobody who�s left their cave in the last five years should have any doubt that at some point digital image capture would be able to exceed conventional film in resolution and other quantifiable performance measures. If it�s not there today, it soon will be, and history suggests that it will even be available at affordable prices in due time. Someday a programmer will write the algorithms which will enable Nikon and Canon to add menu selections for credible Velvia, Kodachrome 25 and Tri X replication (though it's not nearly there yet). The film �look� issue will become minimal, not that it makes much difference to those who enjoy the process of film-based picture making and the pleasure of using our quaint cameras.

 

Other issues have, to a great extent, been settled. Digital is the more desirable and more efficient technology for short-deadline work. That, too, does not matter one bit to many of the people on this forum. As previous posters have noted, the technologies will exist side by side for some time. Most of the photography I do to feed my children and dog is digital, but that hasn�t turned me against film. The way in which this topic is relevant to us, as Patrick implies, is whether Leica will continue to exist. If it folds, all of us users, even those with 50-year-old cameras, will feel the negative effects.

 

I am encouraged by some signs�the relationship with Panasonic for lenses, which now includes videocams and a 12X, image-stabilization zoom (yes, yes, I know this has been mentioned in a previous thread) for still cameras. Perhaps it would have been better if Leica was in on this trend earlier, before the competitors grabbed up the early-adopter customers. But digital equipment has a short useful half life, and those folks will be back in the market before long. If Leica�s product is top notch and bears the company�s typical honesty of execution, it�ll have the potential to do fine (from a product, if not marketing, standpoint). Don�t forget that the pioneers can often be identified by the arrows sticking out of their backs.

[gary_ferguson1]

"Jeez, I just noticed.....the Canon digital camera in the Luminous Landscape article is actually BIGGER than the Pentax 67!"

 

 

Kevin, I was watching a re-run of "Pretty Woman" the other day, it's a great movie that works as well today as when it was made, we ignore the huge shoulder pads and the dated Lotus Esprit, ignore that is until we get to the scene where Richard Gere picks up a mobile phone that's about the size of a loaf of bread. It looks so absurd that we can no longer "suspend disbelief" and enjoy the movie, its very ridiculousness overwhelms us. Every time I pick up my giant Nikon D1x I know that before too long it'll be right there with all the laughably oversized ironmongery of yesteryear.

[kevin m.]

Just finished watching the Super Bowl....amid the sea of digital still cameras I couldn't help but notice that the NFL is still shooting their games on film with Arri SR's.

[david_killick9]

I'm reading The Inmates are Running the Asylum, by Alan

Cooper, a former software engineer now a design consultant

and member of the American Center for Design. He laments

unfriendly digital design: "To err is human, to really screw up you

need a computer."

 

Some puzzles: what do you get when you cross a computer with

a camera? With an alarm clock? A car? An airplane? A warship?

In each case, the progeny of these seemingly ill-matched

liaisons is dominated by the silicon gene: you always end up

with a computer. And this a computer industry insider speaking.

 

Cooper's conclusion: computer-derived products are just too

damned dificult to use. Sure, they have useful features, but these

products need to be more in sync with the everyday needs of the

people who use them.

 

I have nothing against digital products, just think they should be

simpler, more ergonomic, more intuitive, not overladen with

unnecessary, cumbersome features. And it's true that the best of

them can produce results very nearly as good as film-based

technology at only about five times the cost .

 

Large digital cameras are unwieldy beasts, and, like Samuel

Johnson's dancing bear, "the wonder isn't that the bear dances

well but that the bear dances at all."

[bob haight]

The arguments do not alter the fact that the color print market is going entirely digital. Film will be available but only in very limited supply in B&W and slide. I hope within the foreseeable fuure people can still develop their own B&W in wet darkrooms. The new B&W digital technology and printers is gaining fast, however.

[ron_l]

>>"Digital doesn't look or feel like film."<< Marc Williams

 

Marc, I understand you perfectly and it's the reason I only shoot film. I do not make my living from photography and thus I am not influenced by anything other than my enjoyment working in the medium and with the results I get. As for becoming more and more of a minority....I welcome it. I have no problem being a participant in a craft that is being practiced by an ever smaller percentage of people. Does it really upset anyone that they may become further isolated from the "shoot the image twelve times until you get it right, digicam crowd"? I can tell you it certainly doesn't bother me.

 

As for all of the nonsense that film won't be around long for us to use. It is just that...nonsense. Film is cheap to produce and the R&D has already been done. There will be money to be made from producing it no matter how small the demand. Yes there may be less choices in the future and cost may go up marginally but it will still be a viable option to produce images. Period.

[bob haight]

Ronald, take a look at the video rental business. It was all tape only a few years ago. Now most of the stores are DVD. I doubt you will be able to get tape movies in the not too far future. Will go the way of lp records. Price and quality have entered the realm where digital will be replacing film at a much faster pace. (and I don't even own a digital camera)

[ron_l]

Bob - I have no doubt that DVDs will completely replace VHS in a few years. I am also pretty sure that DVDs will become obsolete some time after that as people just buy/rent movies off the internet and download them onto their TVs. So what? All of these comparisons to photography are meaningless. You could come up with dozens of analogies to argue either side. Did horses cease to have any purpose in our society after they were replaced by machinery? Are fountain pens still used even though they are more expensive and less convenient than ballpoint pens? And on the other side of the arguement is the manual typewriter and stagecoach. If you just look at photography as a commercial or consumer enterprise then EVENTUALLY film would go the way of the BETA tape. But to do so is to discount photography as a craft and art form. I enjoy working with film and I love the results I get. Am I in the minority?...yes. Am I alone...I think not. Am I happy?...very.

[markci]

<i>

By the author's own admission, the scanner used to scan the Velvia slide was not the highest possible. He goes on to say that a drum scanner would have produced better results.

</i>

<p>

Actually, he goes on to present a drum scan which, though clearly better than the cheaper scan, isn't obviously better than the digital image. Apparently you didn't bother to read the article before commenting.

<i>

A more fair comparison would be a direct print of both the slide and the output of the digital camera at a very large enlargement ratio.

</i>

<p>

There's no question the optical print would lose this comparison badly. Digital prints from a scanned slide are currently superior to optical prints in terms of resolution. I'm talking about LightJet prints, whereas Michael favors inkjets, but either way, optical enlargers for color work are pretty much a dead issue. If the digital capture rivals the scanned digital print, it would certainly beat the optical print.

<p>

<i>

I'd be willing to bet that a comparison of projected image vs. digital print would yield a result FAR better in terms of resolution than the author of the article on luminouslandscape website.

</i>

<p>

Whether it would or wouldn't doesn't make any difference, unless your desired output is a projected slide. Nobody claimed digital capture is superior if that's what you want, so it's pretty hard to see your point.

<p>

<i>

I also had to laugh when he said that he had to wait 30 seconds for the digital medium to process the image before he could take another photo. So much for capturing the decisive moment.

</i>

<p>

He never said any such thing. Again, did you read the article? He said it took 30 seconds to load it into Photoshop.

[steve_gangi2]

As an electronic engineer, I have to agree with Bob Flores. The so-called "data" that is usually invoked is rigged to favor digital and is grossly unscientific. Other than that, I said what I had to say in another thread. Basically, it boiled down to this... Use whatever you want. We don't care. So why should you care what we choose to use? Stop trying to cram your "message" down the throats of people who are not interested? It's too much like some old time westerns, where the bad guy says "Either yer with me or agin me". Good way to turn potential converts OFF.