Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Peter, I suspect that certain of Kodak's films like Tri-X are very profitable and that if Kodak, as we know it today, was to radically change in the future their more popular films would continue with or without a yellow box. There are, by some estimates, more than one billion film cameras out in the world and that makes for lots and lots of film consumers! Regards, Greg > Hi, Greg! I was happy to read it, too. We have all been subject > to an > awful lot of prosedigitalytization lately. Some of it is real-- > digital has > some wonderful benefits, especially in terms of speed, instant > feedback, > volume, tweakability, smoothness (in DSLRs, anyway) and lack of > cost of > "consumables." For many sports and spot news photographers, and > for > catalog photography, digital is the only economical way to go. For > snapshooters, it's good enough. > > But a lot of what we hear is hype designed to convince the lemming > consumers that they will not be whole 21st century human beings if > they > don't chuck all those antique film cameras and go 100% digital > RIGHT > NOW! In this respect "digital" joins things like cell phones, > PDAs, fax > machines, PCs, Cabbage Patch dolls, hula hoops and oat bran as > Stuff That > All With-It People Gotta Have. > > Then there's the "I'm superior to, or cooler than thou" > phenomenon. It's > mostly espoused by: > > 1. Computer geeks who believe that anything in regular production > is > already "legacy." > 2. Free market fundamentalists who delight in comparing the makers > of film > to the manufacturers of buggy whips in 1905. > > (Reminder to self: I have Orson Welles' "The Magnificent > Ambersons" on > tape, gotta watch it sometime). > > The Japanese manufacturers' livelihood depends on riding these > trends > correctly. It's interesting to read their predictions that film's > sales > decline will level off soon, as will digital's steep rise. And > that while > there's going to be an awful lot of digital around, there will > still be > enough of a film market that they are going to keep designing and > producing > new medium and high-end film cameras. > > Also interesting to see the difference between Canon and Nikon's > take on > sensor size and lenses designed specifically for digital. > > Anyway, I suspect that we will all be able to find film for quite > a > while. And if Kodak bags it, Fuji will be happy to take up the > slack. While I love Tri-X and Supra, Neopan 400 and Fuji Press > ain't bad, > either. > > The digital camera I really want isn't made yet. What comes close > is > either too big and heavy, too expensive, too clunky to shoot Leica- > style > and fast, or not good enough in image quality. I'm eying that > Panasonic > DC1, with a Leica lens but without the red dot. It might be the > one. Or > not. We'll see. Olympus did pretty good quality with a 2/3 > sensor in the > E-10 and E-20. Maybe Panaleica will, too. > > In the meantime, I'm happy to play with with my used, cheaply- > bought > Coolpix. And shoot my Leicas for anything serious. You can buy an > awful > lot of Tri-X for the cost of any DSR that does low-light anywhere > near as > well. And if you want dynamic range, negative film is still where > it's at. > > Now, if someone would only invent film that scans itself while I > sleep, and > presents me with dustless TIFFs in the morning. . . > > --Peter Klein > Seattle > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica- > users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html