Irritation

[gyoung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But the whole point is IMHO that the only point of spending the considerable sums on Leica cameras (as I did on an m3 in '68 and an m6 in 2004) was that it was a lifetime purchase.

Film cameras got to the stage ages ago that they had to invent new 'features' to sell to the gullible who are taken in by the marketing.

If you need to scrap the camera after 5-6 years because the sensor or electronics are obsolete and can't be repaired or newer will produce better images then there is absolutely no point in making it like a tank so you have to charge the earth for it.

Modern materials and production methods mean that Nikon, Canon or Fuji can make a camera that at least challenges an m9 for quality and sells for a quarter of the price.

JAAPV elsewhere has suggested that Leica must and will make the move with the expected APS C or bigger camera into a larger and more stable market than the rich men's jewelry one they inhabit with the m9, I have my doubts that they can make it at a competitive price and reliable enough for a mass market.

 

Gerry

[pico]

In the modern age, there is no such thing as a "lifetime camera", unless your lifetime is six months.

 

I agree, and to that end I suggest that Leica produce, without lowering prices, digital cameras with elite, limited edition artwork adorning cardboard bodies. If the global development of digital cameras continues at its current rate, then cardboard construction should last just long enough to meet the horizon of replacement.

 

Let us take it a step farther and put an expiry, or 'use by' date on cameras and flag EXIF data to indicate images made in passe cameras. Certainly photos made in 'old' cameras are not worth considering.

 

[....]certainty, where will you be with your old "lifetime cameras" that you intend to hand down to your grandkids? Before you're cold they'll toss them in the garbage.

 

Ah, welcome to the ignore file. Perhaps your grandkids would agree it is merciful to ignore before you grow cold.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

There are 2 separate issues being discussed here. Sometimes interwoven in the same sentence.

 

1. Is there some way to upgrade the sensor,etc? & how should it be done?

 

2. Is there some way to easily separate the sensor from the remainder of the camera so that the same basic camera, range/viewfinder, shutter, etc can be more easily & inexpensively integrated w/ subsequently improved sensor electronics?

 

Example of #2: Hasselblad 500C

 

The camera, etc stays. The backs change.

 

You can use:

 

Kodachrome until it is no longer processed.

 

You can use Tri-X

 

You can use a digital back.

 

& perhaps what comes after digital.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[pico]

[...]If you need to scrap the camera after 5-6 years because the sensor or electronics are obsolete and can't be repaired or newer will produce better images then there is absolutely no point in making it like a tank so you have to charge the earth for it.

 

With so many would-be markets now acquiring photographs dirt-cheap and sometimes free, and stock agencies soaking up the rest, then just how good will a camera have to be, and can you make a living? Current cameras can be adequate with future high-def monitors and TVs: they do have a practical limit.

 

Taking the strident position of the 'must update every moment' people seems unwise in the most pragmatic sense. If Leica takes the disposable, planned obsolescence path, then it will be the end of them for they cannot throw away faster than the big Asian makers. Dumpster land.

[lct]

Cameras won't stop to evolve because some of us are happy with their M9 or their Lomo.

[swamiji]

Cameras won't stop to evolve because some of us are happy with their M9 or their Lomo.

 

One mans evolution is another mans junk. M9 sales speaks volumes. MM projected sales is not a fluke. There is a demand for minimalism. Leica has tapped in to this with the M. It seems people will pay any price for it...

[MichaelRabern]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everybody,

 

There are 2 separate issues being discussed here. Sometimes interwoven in the same sentence.

 

1. Is there some way to upgrade the sensor,etc? & how should it be done?

 

2. Is there some way to easily separate the sensor from the remainder of the camera so that the same basic camera, range/viewfinder, shutter, etc can be more easily & inexpensively integrated w/ subsequently improved sensor electronics?

 

Example of #2: Hasselblad 500C

 

The camera, etc stays. The backs change.

 

You can use:

 

Kodachrome until it is no longer processed.

 

You can use Tri-X

 

You can use a digital back.

 

& perhaps what comes after digital.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Michael,

 

I believe Ricoh has accomplished this with the GXR, and the A12 mount. In Ricoh world, tomorrow this mount could be simply upgraded to a more palatable full frame sensor, or whathaveyou sensor. The lens keep and the back carries onward until its ready for a line change.

 

Maybe Leica's staunch desire to keep to the mechanical aspects of focusing prevents similiar innovations.

 

Whatever happens after digital will probably be surgical and lifetime. Cheers!

 

V/r

 

Michael

[Carduelis]

Michael,

 

I believe Ricoh has accomplished this with the GXR, and the A12 mount. In Ricoh world, tomorrow this mount could be simply upgraded to a more palatable full frame sensor, or whathaveyou sensor. The lens keep and the back carries onward until its ready for a line change.

 

Maybe Leica's staunch desire to keep to the mechanical aspects of focusing prevents similiar innovations.

 

Whatever happens after digital will probably be surgical and lifetime. Cheers!

 

V/r

 

Michael

 

This was one of the main reasons that attracted me to the Ricoh GXR, the fact that it seemed so versatile and could be updated without large financial loss. Although, I am content with it, I do look forward to the day they may release a full frame sensor mount that takes Leica lenses. It might be an A18 mount based on the current Leica M9 full frame sensor !! Another relatively compact full frame mount would also give me extra focal lengths to complement my existing three Leica lenses bearing in mind the 1.5 crop factor of my existing A12 mount sensor. It also effectively provides a spare back up sensor in case one fails or suddenly develops a bad dust problem.

[250swb]

One mans evolution is another mans junk. M9 sales speaks volumes. MM projected sales is not a fluke. There is a demand for minimalism. Leica has tapped in to this with the M. It seems people will pay any price for it...

 

The minimalism of the M9 is illusory, it may provide a simple box for recording an image but the complications come with the image making, getting correct focus, correct colour balance, refining exposure for a good dynamic range, not to mention the obsessions over what lens to use. It is complicated to use well, and easy to use badly.

 

This of course has always been the case in 'traditional' photography. But now almost any camera can make a better auto exposure than an M9, give fast and accurate auto focus, and provide a better auto colour balance. That is a simple minimal camera. The often heard grumble of 'why should I pay for video in a camera when I don't want it..... (etc)' should be looked at from the other direction, a direction that was summed up by Enzo Ferrari back in the 1960's. He had a rude customer complaining about corrosion that had appeared on his two year old car, to which Enzo looked puzzled and bemused before realising the mistake the customer was making, so he retorted 'when you buy a Ferrari you buy the engine, gearbox and suspension, the rest, the body and trim and extras, we give you for free!' And that is how an M10 will be, lots of free extra's, perhaps junk, but you won't need to use all of it.

 

Steve

[swamiji]

The minimalism of the M9 is illusory, it may provide a simple box for recording an image but the complications come with the image making, getting correct focus, correct colour balance, refining exposure for a good dynamic range, not to mention the obsessions over what lens to use. It is complicated to use well, and easy to use badly.

 

This of course has always been the case in 'traditional' photography. But now almost any camera can make a better auto exposure than an M9, give fast and accurate auto focus, and provide a better auto colour balance. That is a simple minimal camera. The often heard grumble of 'why should I pay for video in a camera when I don't want it..... (etc)' should be looked at from the other direction, a direction that was summed up by Enzo Ferrari back in the 1960's. He had a rude customer complaining about corrosion that had appeared on his two year old car, to which Enzo looked puzzled and bemused before realising the mistake the customer was making, so he retorted 'when you buy a Ferrari you buy the engine, gearbox and suspension, the rest, the body and trim and extras, we give you for free!' And that is how an M10 will be, lots of free extra's, perhaps junk, but you won't need to use all of it.

 

Steve

 

Nonsense, the minimalism of the camera, is IMHO the only reason it exists. If it follows the other companies it is doomed.

 

As far as other cameras taking better pictures. It's Like saying a computer is better than a slide rule. With a slide rule you can see all possible solutions, with a computer you only see one. The reason I went with the M is I wanted control of my photos, and not turn it over to a computer. I have been down that path, not again. Spending time navigating menus to disable feature... Argh!

 

If I don't like I won't buy!

[cocker]

Nonsense, the minimalism of the camera, is IMHO the only reason it exists.

 

As far as other cameras taking better pictures. It's Like saying a computer is better than a slide rule. With a slide rule you can see all possible solutions, with a computer you only see one. The reason I went with the M is I wanted control of my photos, and not turn it over to a computer.

 

That is nonsense in my opinion. I have been taking photographs for nearly 50 years so I have seen cameras come and go. I invested quite heavily in Leica several years ago and don't regret it. But I also use other cameras.

 

On my recent holiday to Scotland I did an experiment. I took 2 cameras, 4 lenses and a lot of Tri-X. The equipment I took was:

 

Leica MP & 35 & 50 mm Summicron Lenses - approximate second-hand value - £4000.00

 

Nikon FE & 35 & 50mm Nikkor Lenses - approximate second-hand value - £170.00

 

I used the cameras separately but also took some subjects with the two cameras and corresponding focal length lenses. I have now started to develop and scan some of the film. I can honestly say there is no correlation in my view between the good pictures and the camera they were taken with and in the cases where I took duplicate subjects I would defy anyone to say which camera they came from.

 

There are a lot of similarities in using the two cameras. Both are compact and unobtrusive (the Nikon is a fraction smaller than the Leica), both are well built (the Leica is more solid and smooth but the Nikon is well made and a pleasure to handle), the Leica has a quieter shutter but the Nikon is not particularly loud, I find the Nikon easier to focus and exposure metering is better, the Nikon is faster to load with film etc etc etc.....

 

I would not get rid of my Leica equipment unless I really had to but the "mystique" of Leica is vastly overstated in my opinion. Its a pleasure to be able to afford an expensive, well made camera but does it take better pictures - No!

[surfer dude]

And when 35mm film disappears, which will happen in many people's "lifetime" as a certainty

 

Really? A certainty?

[swamiji]

That is nonsense in my opinion. I have been taking photographs for nearly 50 years so I have seen cameras come and go. I invested quite heavily in Leica several years ago and don't regret it. But I also use other cameras.

 

 

Let me clarify. The reason you can not see the difference is because you took the photo! It's the photographer that is the deciding factor. Cameras don't take pictures people do!

 

When people say this or that camera takes a better photo I have to laugh. The reason I use Leica M is how I relate to it as an instrument of my eye. To capture what I see. As a painter sees his brush. So would a computerized paint brush make a better painter?

[stunsworth]

So would a computerized paint brush make a better painter?

 

In my case most certainly.

[swamiji]

In my case most certainly.

 

I guess it depends on the interface

[gyoung]

I've been using Leica and Nikon side by side for more than 40 years (as well as all sorts of other stuff mainly larger format), generally for different sorts of work but sometimes side by side. In general I think my Leicas are better made, but quite unnecessarily so in most respects, I have not had problems with my Nikons, and a lot of experience with student use of (mainly) Nikkormats I know they can stand up to much harder work than I give them.

Likewise with lenses in general Leica is 'better' than Nikon, but only in extremis will you notice the differences, at the apertures you normally use sharpness is similar, and the only time I really think I can see a difference I can admire is with colour slides where the Leica Summicrons in particular give a colour gradation and subtlety which I think I can see. By the time you have put the image on paper all that subtlety is lost in my experience!

35mm film will only disapear if people stop using it, its not 'inevitable' as some insist. In fact I wonder sometimes if people will get sick of changing their cameras every few years as new features are foisted on them by marketing departments, especially when digital reaches the point film did years ago where no useful improvement in quality is possibe in sensors etc.

 

Gerry

[M. Valdemar]

I have news for you, your Leica M9 camera IS already a computer, and it already makes thousands of decisions for you every time you press the shutter. And if you can't use a computer, it is virtually impossible to view or post process your images.

 

 

The reason I went with the M is I wanted control of my photos, and not turn it over to a computer. I have been down that path, not again. Spending time navigating menus to disable feature... Argh!

 

[M. Valdemar]

Absolutely. Maybe not in 5 years, maybe not in 10 years, but the day is coming where film will not be commercially available with a price within reason.

 

It may exist as a laboratory curiosity, or as an extreme niche product for enthusiasts, but not as you know it now. When the market shrinks to a certain point, manufacturing will stop. No company is going to produce products for which there are no sales.

 

I know "artist" photographers here in NYC using obsolete processes such as tintypes and ambrotypes, or salt prints. There used to be a vibrant market for the plates and chemistry for this type of photographic material, but not anymore. You can no longer say it "exists" as a commercial entity.

 

It will be the same for film, no matter how much you want it to stay. Emulsions with gelatin backings have had a good 125+ year run, but now a major sea change is almost complete.

 

Accept reality.

 

Really? A certainty?

[cocker]

Accept reality.

 

What a rude statement. Accept Your reality you mean. You have no more monopoly on the "truth" than anyone else.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stunsworth]

Accept reality.

 

Quill Pens & Stationery - Goose Feather Quill Pen