Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
From: bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Tue Nov 9 08:07:20 2004

And Seth - I think you are absolutely right about the New Zealand story
- that has the ring of "urban digital legend" to it. ;-)

And I just returned to the keyboard having wasted 10 minutes wasting two
frames of 2 1/4 slide film on one of our cats... :-)

Best
B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Seth Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 10:50 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron


B.D.

I don't think I disagree with one thing you wrote. Except that I suspect

that the LHSA member who couldn't find film in New Zealand had an agenda
or 
was looking for film in the wilderness. I simply do not believe that one

cannot find film to buy in N.Z.

Seth

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron


> Hi, Seth - I have said many times that I suspect there will be film 
> around during our life-times. The fact that Kodak and Fuji will 
> continue to manufacture film is hardly surprising, given the number of

> film cameras out there.
>
> Far more telling however - and even I find it astonishing - is your 
> friend's experience. That is the reality.
>
> Beyond that, digital appeals top far more than editors and P&S 
> throw-away freaks. In fact, many editors have been resisting digital -

> particularly magazine editors. Digital doesn't appeal to people 
> because it symbolizes anything - it appeals to people because it gives

> the overwhelming majority as good or better results than they got with

> film, cheaper and faster than they got those film results. You seem to

> forget that most people don't shoot 25 iso slide film with Leica Ms 
> using the latest aspheric lenses - they shoot with disposable film 
> cameras (speaking of throw-away) and with point-and-shoots costing 
> less than $100.
>
> The real digital story is that digital delivers on the 
> never-quite-fulfilled promise of Polaroid - it's true instant 
> photography. And, as I mentioned in my response to Mark Rabiner, with 
> the arrival of the new Epson, Canon - and I just saw an ad in this 
> morning's paper for a similar product from Dell - people are being 
> offered their own 4x6 'labs' for about $150! If you're not a 
> Leicaphile, or someone who has a real need for film, or an artistic 
> interest in it, why would you want film when you can have a $150 
> appliance at home that for $.29 a print cranks out 4x6s every bit as 
> good or better than the 4x6s you got at the corner lab - that were 
> often pretty crappy, dust covered, and scratched?
>
> As to shooting film and scanning - which I did for about five years, 
> yes, it's a great way to go if you want to shoot film. I still do it 
> on occasion, and I'm sure I will continue to do it for some time to 
> come. It does not, however, offer many of the benefits of digital that

> go beyond cost and speed - but those sure are huge, important benefits

> of digital.
>
> I think that those of you for whom money is less of a concern than it 
> is for most people greatly underestimate the importance of cost in 
> this film-digital equation. I shoot professionally, but when it comes 
> to my personal shooting, cost is an enormous part of the equation; I 
> have to think about my son's college tuition, and all my other 
> expenses, when I shoot for myself. And digital allows me to totally 
> ignore the cost part of photography - I can carry a camera with me all

> the time and shoot my brains out - without spending a penny. I am 
> definitely shooting more now that I am shooting digital than I was 
> shooting when I was primarily using film. And the more I shoot for 
> myself, the better my photography for clients gets - and the more my 
> digital bw work looks like my film bw work. ;-)
>
> Yes, Seth, film will be around as long as we will - but with every 
> passing year it will become more and more exotic and, I suspect, more 
> expensive. Just as the price of digital storage and printing is 
> dropping, and will continue to drop up to a certain point, so the cost

> of film and processing it will continue to rise.
>
> If you like film, shoot it. Enjoy it. Revel in it.  But don't allow 
> your personal enjoyment to keep you from seeing the reality that we 
> are living through one of those major moments in the technical history

> of photography in which the medium of photography moves from one form 
> of image capture and storage to another.
>
> B. D.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf 
> Of Seth Rosner
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:39 AM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
>
>
> Hi  B.D.:
>
> At the LHSA Leica Akademie meeting last week, I sat next to a member 
> who
>
> said that in New Zealand recently, he couldn't find a place to buy 
> film and had to buy a cheap digital to record his trip; added that 
> film would be dead
> in two years.
>
> The following day Karen Sweet, Kodak representative, gave a 
> power-point presentation on Kodak's doings in imaging, both film and 
> digital. An astonishing array of world-class digital products and an 
> equally astonishing array of up-dated old and brand new professional 
> film emulsions, in 35mm and
> other formats. During her talk and the ensuing q&a I could not help
> thinking
> of you.
>
> Take a look at the Kodak website for their film palette. Then talk 
> about
>
> film's demise.
>
> It is clear that professionals and editors to whom speed and ease of 
> transmission is critical are working, perhaps close to exclusively, in

> digital. Equally clear that a majority of p&s consumers in the west 
> will
>
> choose digital for its ease and cheapness, and because it almost 
> symbolizes the disposable, throw-away world we live in.
>
> IMHO, Ted's current methodology is the very best combination of 
> quality and
> ease: film capture, then scan, edit and print digitally.
>
> My strong bet: neither Kodak nor Fuji will leave the film business in 
> our lifetimes.
>
> Seth     LaK 9
>
> Had a wonderful time; wish you were her.  ;-)
>
> Seth        LaK 9
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 10:48 PM
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
>
>
>> First off, Marc, while I like the E-1, I wouldn't lose a nanosecond's

>> sleep if digital turned out to be the passing fancy, or whatever it 
>> is
>
>> some of you seem to believe it is. I love film, love my Ms. Just like

>> the people who loved their daguerreotypes loved those plates, and 
>> just
>
>> like the speed graphic shooters loved their film holders.
>>
>> But as much as I hate to burst your bubble, film is indeed dying. 
>> Tell
>
>> the folks at Ilford and Kodak that film isn't dying. Of course there 
>> are sixteen trillion film cameras out there. But that has nothing to 
>> do with whether film is dying. I'm sure you'll go on shooting film 
>> until the day you die, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the 
>> previous capture medium. The question isn't how many film cameras 
>> still exist, the important question is - at what rate is the number 
>> of
>
>> digital cameras increasing every six months, and how does that 
>> compare
>
>> to the number of film cameras being sold?
>>
>> As to the Nikon F6 - Yes indeed, it is due out - and I will place 
>> money on the fact that Nikon will, within 12 months of the 
>> introduction of the F6, announce a digital back for it - probably a 
>> full-frame digital back as they don't have one yet. No major camera 
>> company - other than Leica - will introduce a pro film camera that is

>> not also a digital camera. For Gds sake, Nikon F5s and Canon EOS1ns 
>> are being virtually given away these days.
>>
>> Another sign of the ascendency of digital is the printers that Epson 
>> and Canon are now churning out for the home market that crank out 
>> 4x6s
>
>> at apx .$29 a piece - just pop in your CF card, or hook up your 
>> camera, and print away - no computer necessary, no knowledge of 
>> photoshop necessary. Your own "60 minute" photolab in on your own 
>> kitchen table.
>>
>> Yes, the reality is that film is now the domain of hobbiests, a small

>> number of documentary photographers and some art photographers. Kids 
>> aren't buying film point and shoots now Mark - they're buying digital

>> P&Ss and camera cell phones.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
>> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Mark Rabiner
>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 9:24 PM
>> To: Leica Users Group
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
>>
>>
>> On 11/8/04 3:52 PM, "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> typed:
>>
>>> That used to be the beauty, Vic. But alas, with the dying of film, 
>>> it
>
>>> is no longer true. While Leica equipment may hold its value better 
>>> than most film equipment, it is no longer holding it the way it did 
>>> even a year ago. M6 TTLs purchased for $1995 were selling for about 
>>> $1450 in near mint condition - now they're down to about $1150 - if 
>>> you're lucky- and used M7s, which are now selling for, what, around 
>>> $2800, are only worth approximately 50% of their new priced once 
>>> they've been driven off the lot. So if you're going to invest $2500 
>>> in
>>
>>> a 50 1.4 lens, you damn well better love that lens. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Film is not dying BD.
>> I think its great you are on a roll with your Olympus E but lets keep

>> our perspective on the whole thing. The film market is being 
>> moderated
>
>> or minimized. AS there are other technological options which appear 
>> more popular for many uses. That's all.
>>
>> There are 10 billion (last count) cameras out there which all use 
>> film
>
>> to take pictures and plenty of people who are going to want to use 
>> them for quite some time.
>>
>> The Nikon F6 is due out soon.
>> New film cameras are being introduced every day.
>>
>> And the ones made last year still work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Rabiner
>> Photography
>> Portland Oregon
>> http://rabinergroup.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron)
Reply from sethrosner at direcway.com (Seth Rosner) ([Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron)
In reply to: Message from sethrosner at direcway.com (Seth Rosner) ([Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron)