What will happen to film M cameras? (Speculation warning!)

[Guest BigSplash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Frank do you mean a detachable EVF and the body assemblies of those cameras without the finder part (like the wide ZI film cameras for example?)

Detachable external optical finders are well established and work for particular applications of course (not focusing).

Perhaps you meant to refer to an EVF built in to the body in place of the rangefinder?

My view there is that there would likely be great reservation on the part of current M users, based on what is current known production (Panasonic G1). Stefan did say at the Hessenpark dinner that Leica considers it the lowest possible acceptable standard.

In my opinion a detachable EVF makes no market or technical sense with any film M body.

Given the minute tolerances and the focus criticality I would question its practicality with the M8 body. Since we have no official information on the M9 design yet there can be no informed opinion there.

 

I agree that there have been hints and 'daydreaming' from Leica (in LFI) on a possible different finder system, possible zooms, R&M adaptors, as well as a gap in their product range below the M8.

My speculation is something separate to the M9 (as you have suggested too), perhaps like the Olympus EP-1 or the leaked (unproven to exist) Panasonic GF-1.

 

Geoff I talked with Stefan Daniels yesterday and he reiterated:

1 He has a belief in new technologies that will allow framing and focussing with a "EVF type approach" and that " mirror housing " may at some point become old technology...he said the same thing a few months ago when I spoke and at Hessenpark I believe.

2 He sees this new EVF technology as a way forward for Macro and Telephoto and he again emphasized that Leica will attack the macro and telephoto space with their cameras while giving a way forward for owners of old "R" lenses.

3 He did NOT say that the M would have an adapter based on EVF nor that it would be on a future M (within viewfinder or LCD screen)......that is obvioulsy too sensitive to preannounce products and I fully respect that.

4 He says that there strategy is definitely to eat into the DSLR market and offer a true system camera offering (my impression was outside the S2 and based on the M..but he did NOT say that)

 

 

Given the above thoughts and various threads here about low business chances for S2 it newly occurs to me that S2 maybe mainly a vehicle for new technology devt. and that Leica have a plan to use the Mx as the basis of a camera that is happy as a rangefnder but can also do macro and telephoto "somehow" (add on box or rear screen...I have no idea)

 

If the above is true and they can pull it off at a technical level I think that would be a brilliant initiative...and Dr Kaufmann will make his 250M€uro in sales I guess.

 

Finally I suggested the need for a low entry ticket Leica body ( a kind of easier to manufacture M8) and he said that he certainly recognised the need but could not comment obviously.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stunsworth]

Or to put it more succinctly, there will be a solution for R users that will use an EVF. It's what he told the forum members who visited Leica the other month.

 

I think I can guess why he wouldn't confirm a future M with an EVF.

[Guest BigSplash]

Although I can appreciate that people may want to spend their money on other stuff that they find more important, and I am fully aware that there are plenty in NL & UK and other parts of the first world that can only dream about buying something so expensive, I am nevertheless confused about the price argument that keeps cropping up.

 

A car costs 5keuro & up (including second hand) roughly, a set of chairs & table for the kitchen 1000 euro, washing machine 500+, TV about 1000, carpet, curtains, garden plants, getting the house painted is all in that sort of ballpark. How much does a holiday cost ?

 

A M8 is a lot of money compared to many other cameras but I do not expect reselling/replacing it very quickly and the lenses keep their value. So we are talking about maybe 500 euro/year depreciation to own and use a M8. That is a lot but not ridiculous - about the same as a change of tyres. What gives me more fun........??

 

Also, I was intrigued to read that the average household in NL has about 50 keuro stored in savings, so there are plenty with a lot more money lying around that they are not doing anything useful with.

 

I am sure that your analysis is correct and in relation to other household items a Leica camera is cheap.

BUT

People buy things based on "VALUE BASED PRICING" .......if a Rolls Royce costs £250K it is no good comparing it to a Mercedes 320E at a much lower price.

 

Most people want a camera to take photographs and most people buy Canon or Nikon as a quality camera ......the price of a Canon body (£1900) and a zoom lens is much less than a Leica M8.2 (£4000), which may stand SOME level of higher pricing due to the better quality and maybe the prestige and pride of ownership. ...but over double the price!?

 

A professional probably looks at the issue differently...ROI and reliability, plus after sales service. I guess that there is many a photographer who has a desire for a S2 but cannot justify in business terms the price.

[Guest BigSplash]

Big IF but IF your scenario were played out I'm 100% certain that Leica as a camera brand would continue, albeit most likely under new ownership and probably with a different product range. The brand is too famous to simply disappear.

 

James you and I can agree on this!

[Guest BigSplash]

As one businessman to another, I don't understand your difficulty with the concept. It's common practice outside the world of the corner shop.

 

This is small bucks, £1,000 of cost x100, less any return on sales.

 

Didn't I hear that the Hummer never made a profit and not sure whether PC's or was it mainframes never turned in a contribution for IBM. Still, you're drawing me into a discussion on Corporate finances and marketing strategy that I'm not getting paid for. LOL

 

end

 

You are correct that companies and corporations will accept a loss leader if it makes sense for the total business. IBM lost money of PC hardware but made a killing on selling "solutions" (ie Hardware + Software + Professional Services = Big Bucks and oodles of profit).

 

Leica today is making a significant operating loss and has a bleak financial outlook for S2 and Pradovit I would believe. Sport Optics and M digital cameras seem be the cash cow .

 

I ask is it reasonable to use the cows milk for nostalgic reasons rather than fostering the extension of the M digital market niche into a system offering for example that can help Leica M digital cameras eat away at DSLR market?

[Guest BigSplash]

Steve, I entirely agree with you on the low res/high cost issue. One alternative that I have taken is to build a relationship with your local processor. They CAN turn up the resolution, but often there is no incentive for them to do so. Asking nicely may get you somewhere, however - it certainly did me.

 

Where I disagree is that big players should offer high quality scanning - "should" is a million miles away from "will", and will is driven by business sense. Why should they continue to keep an old, and messy, environmentally unfriendly, skill-heavy service model competitive with "clean" digital processing? I regret the implication, but I am resigned to it.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Bill it must be a first ....I actually agree with your thoughts and going to your local photo guy is something that is very clever.

 

That said film has the significant disadvantage of:

> High Price

> Time to see the results (inability to immediately check if exposure i set correctly etc) and obtain the final scanned image

> Limit of 36 exposure per film

[JBA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Frank, just because you're infatuated with digital doesn't mean those of us who shoot film do so for nostalgic reasons.

[Guest BigSplash]

Frank, just because you're infatuated with digital doesn't mean those of us who shoot film do so for nostalgic reasons.

 

Sorry I have not truly used film for now a long time and I would like to for nostalgic reasons. I also accept that many Leica enthusiasts prefer film and I apologise to that community as I did not mean any offence. I actually just do not understand why I should put some film through my M4,5 or M6 compared to using my M8...maybe you can help me to understand.

 

Bill says that he has a deal where he shoots with film and then gets his (negative or transparency...not sure which) professionally scanned to high resolution locally. Does that give a better result than a M8?

 

When I look at film availability they seem to be mostly consumer end films that seem to me to yield something that is as good but not better than the results of M8.....again am I missing something?

 

M8 photography is cheaper (no film cost or processing charges) it is immediate, (allows exposure to be checked) and final results are available very quickly also. One memory card gives me about 400 shots and not 36 . I honestly am trying to see why I should go back to film on occassions. Thanks

[Rolo]

I actually just do not understand why I should put some film through my M4,5 or M6 compared to using my M8...maybe you can help me to understand.

 

Bill says that he has a deal where he shoots with film and then gets his (negative or transparency...not sure which) professionally scanned to high resolution locally. Does that give a better result than a M8?

 

When I look at film availability they seem to be mostly consumer end films that seem to me to yield something that is as good but not better than the results of M8.....again am I missing something? I honestly am trying to see why I should go back to film on occassions. Thanks

 

Frank, before this turns into another film v digital row, can I say that you seem to be missing the whole point. I'm trusting that is it's not playing games but a genuine lack of knowledge on your part.

 

Film and digital are different in many ways, some aesthetic, some practical and some economic. Scanned film retains most of the characteristics of film and again it's similarly different from digital capture. Some capable shooters go back and forth depending upon subject matter. One pro I know has a stock of 35mm Polaroid film because nothing can easily duplicate it's character.

 

Whilst the differences in the aesthetic may be overcome by a few very skilled operators, your average shooter can't close the gap. Indeed, when it's a B&W film, I'm of the opinion that the gap can't be closed. Not saying here that beautiful B&W's can't come from a digital capture, of course they can, but replace film aesthetic they can't. Plug-ins can make it look reasonable, but by and large they are of little value, IMO.

 

Film is cheap to run by a small volume shooter, but expensive if you're shooting 1000 frames a month. For a guy shooting a film a week with existing film equipment, film is cheaper than investing in high end capital equipment, for a result that may not be preferred. Plus, you're wrong about film choice as there's still a large number of films available, but maybe not at Tesco. You want Pro film. go to the right stores.

 

I think you're on the wrong track with 'better ?". Only the user can summarise the pros and cons and decide for himself. Better for - convenience, bigger prints, less storage, expense, familiarity, turnaround, aesthetic ...... etc ..... etc.

 

I would not dream of telling you film is best for you. I like film very much indeed, but I shoot enormous volumes of digital images in comparison to most members, as do some others. If you get what you want from your M8, be happy.

[earleygallery]

What Rolo said.

 

The beauty of film is choosing a particular film for its merits, be that grain, contrast or colour saturation. You make your Photoshop decisions in camera when you load your chosen film - although there is always the opportunity to scan and post process also.

 

There's no better/worse or right/wrong, it's down to personal preference and/or the requirements of the 'job'.

[wizard]

Very well put, Rolo.

 

Regards,

 

Andy

[JBA]

Sorry I have not truly used film for now a long time and I would like to for nostalgic reasons. I also accept that many Leica enthusiasts prefer film and I apologise to that community as I did not mean any offence. I actually just do not understand why I should put some film through my M4,5 or M6 compared to using my M8...maybe you can help me to understand.

 

Quite simply because both the experience and the images are different with the different media. If you want to understand, load up one of your film Ms and shoot a roll.

 

Bill says that he has a deal where he shoots with film and then gets his (negative or transparency...not sure which) professionally scanned to high resolution locally. Does that give a better result than a M8?

 

My local lab scans my film to CD ROM at 4-5 mb per jpeg for 350 yen per roll. This is about the price of a cup of coffee and the resolution is more than enough for anything I want to do with a digital image. I'd be very surprised if such a service wasn't available to you with a minimum of inconvenience.

 

When I look at film availability they seem to be mostly consumer end films that seem to me to yield something that is as good but not better than the results of M8.....again am I missing something?

 

I have a whole fridge full of Kodachrome. It's one of the only films not available locally. Some of the films available today are some of the best ever produced.

 

Better is a highly subjective judgment. I have friends who shoot only digital whose work I greatly admire. These same friends look at some of my images and ask how I got that effect. Each has its relative strengths and weaknesses. Only you can decide what gives the best results for you.

 

M8 photography is cheaper (no film cost or processing charges) it is immediate, (allows exposure to be checked) and final results are available very quickly also. One memory card gives me about 400 shots and not 36 . I honestly am trying to see why I should go back to film on occassions. Thanks

 

Again, the reasons I shoot film are the experience and the quality of the images, not to mention having the physical slide or negative as a result. These are things I value over the convenience of digital. You may feel differently, or you may run some film through your cameras and rediscover something.

 

But again, my original point is that film photography has nothing inherently to do with nostalgia and for many film photographers such considerations never enter the picture.

[lct]

...My local lab scans my film to CD ROM at 4-5 mb per jpeg for 350 yen per roll...

Jpeg files are hardly good enough for everybody.

[mhoersch]

One more thing to consider:

 

Look at this thread, look at the threads discussing how the M9 will make M8 second hand prices drop, look at the discussions about what you get and don't get when you upgrade from a Canon 5D to a 5DMKII. In digital photography many people are caught and trapped in the race to get the latest camera model.

 

If I could have film developed well and scanned with excellent quality for a reasonable price (a service which I have yet to find in Germany) I could leave sensors, crop factors, single camera bodies for between 4.000 € (M8) and 18.600 € (S2, for heaven's sake!), RAW processors, film grain simulators, memory cards, depleting DMR batteries and all the other digital blessings behind me. I could go back to taking photographs with M6, R9 and 500C/M, none of which cost more than 1.000 € used but in mint condition, and all that fantastic Leica and Zeiss glass that cost much less. I would occasionally waste a thought or two on which film to use for a particular purpose, but apart from that I would not feel the need to look for new equipment.

 

I will not go back into a darkroom. Never. Because I did that for I know not how many years, and I have had enough of that. Working on my prints on the computer and print them with an EPSON 4000 on Hahnemuehle paper is pure fun with excellent results. Hybrid processing would give the best of both worlds, if only I could have those films developed and scanned...

[JBA]

Jpeg files are hardly good enough for everybody.

 

I wasn't suggesting they were. All I said was that they're adequate for my needs.

[Riccis]

Good reasoning! I would return to film in a second if someone offered the service you describe for a reasonable price. Imagine taking medium format b&w pictures and getting perfect negatives as well as high res scans from the lab - that would be heaven!!!

 

My lab does (Richard Photo Lab)... BTW, some of their customers ship them film to process from overseas so you may want to give them a try, they are the best film lab in the US and maybe even the world.

 

Cheers,

[Brent1965]

I just like using film for the same reason I love using my high end turntable etc, I'm keeping something good & real alive. Something that is tangable & touchable & fun.

 

progress? Example...I just love it when younger friends of friends etc come around to our home for the first time when we're having a party or something. Do you think they're crowded around the Ipod & docking thingie in the kitchen...nope they're in the lounge arguing over what to play next & absolutely gagging over something they've never even seen before - a real turntable & gear (Gyro SE etc for those interested)playing sounds like they've never heard. They sit there stunned silent with their mouths open as I play records of their favourite CD or downloaded albums... Soundstaging, depth, bass that has real timbre, slam & decay. They simply love the experience & comment about how soul-less & constructed their downloaded music seems in comparision. Progress?

 

And it's the same with my old Leica G.

[Steve Ash]

Hi Riccis,

 

I think Richard's Photo lab is the place to go if you stay in the US. But sending film rolls from Europe I would fear that they get x-rayed on their trip.

 

To give you an idea of the insane prices here see the ones from my lab.

 

Scan of KB-/APS-Negativ per image < 10 MB JPG 0,99EUR

Scan of KB/MF per image< 10 MB TIF 3,60EUR

Scan of KB/MF per image< 30 MB TIF 5,75EUR

Scan of complete KB-Film , JPG 14,99EUR

High-End-Scan < 50 MB RGB 18,25EUR

High-End-Scan < 100 MB RGB 30,42EUR

High-End-Scan < 150 MB RGB 45,64EUR

High-End-Scan< 300 MB RGB 63,52EUR

 

If I would like to have my film scanned with 30MB Tiff files it takes only 25 rolls to pay for a brand new M8.2. That is crazy. As said before the film makers have to work out their mini labs to produce high res scans at competitive prices to keep film alive.

 

Further when I ask them for prints they scan it at 10MB only. I suppose the quality of film gets lost this way.

 

Regards

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mhoersch]

To give you an idea of the insane prices here see the ones from my lab.

 

Scan of KB-/APS-Negativ per image < 10 MB JPG 0,99EUR

Scan of KB/MF per image< 10 MB TIF 3,60EUR

Scan of KB/MF per image< 30 MB TIF 5,75EUR

Scan of complete KB-Film , JPG 14,99EUR

High-End-Scan < 50 MB RGB 18,25EUR

High-End-Scan < 100 MB RGB 30,42EUR

High-End-Scan < 150 MB RGB 45,64EUR

High-End-Scan< 300 MB RGB 63,52EUR

 

If I would like to have my film scanned with 30MB Tiff files it takes only 25 rolls to pay for a brand new M8.2. That is crazy. As said before the film makers have to work out their mini labs to produce high res scans at competitive prices to keep film alive.

 

Further when I ask them for prints they scan it at 10MB only. I suppose the quality of film gets lost this way.

 

Regards

Steve

 

Same here. So, I don't think it's the M9 that's going to kill film, it's the way the industry handles film processing and scanning. Even digital Ms begin to look cheap when you at prices like these...

[Guest BigSplash]

I just like using film for the same reason I love using my high end turntable etc, I'm keeping something good & real alive. Something that is tangable & touchable & fun.

 

progress? Example...I just love it when younger friends of friends etc come around to our home for the first time when we're having a party or something. Do you think they're crowded around the Ipod & docking thingie in the kitchen...nope they're in the lounge arguing over what to play next & absolutely gagging over something they've never even seen before - a real turntable & gear (Gyro SE etc for those interested)playing sounds like they've never heard. They sit there stunned silent with their mouths open as I play records of their favourite CD or downloaded albums... Soundstaging, depth, bass that has real timbre, slam & decay. They simply love the experience & comment about how soul-less & constructed their downloaded music seems in comparision. Progress?

 

And it's the same with my old Leica G.

 

I too like vinyl records and have a high end kit to enjoy them. The rationale is different however I listen with my ears and they are anlogue...not digital. Furthermore the process of digitisation within a normal consumer environment with normal CD's does not convert digitised music that well.

 

I think (hope I am right) pictures are scanned and interpreted by the eyes in a different way. Film is a bunch of dots (fine grain hopefully with film and high pixel count if a digital sensor) .