[Leica] Let's Just Say That Leica Survives and....

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 4/20/05 8:32 PM, "Nathan Wajsman" <nathan.wajsman@planet.nl> typed:

> I totally disagree, Mark. Price matters a great deal, even for fondlers.
> If Leica comes out with a price point like the one mentioned by Robert,
> then they might as well not bother.
> 
> I traded Leica for digital when I saw with my own eyes that I could get
> equivalent image quality with the Canon DSLRs. I certainly considered
> the option of the R-D1 but after carefully looking at the features and
> the price I decided that while this was an interesting first stab at a
> digital rangefinder, it was nowhere near a digital M.
> 
> If Leica comes out with a digital M in 2006, the price has to be under
> 2500 Euro.
> 
> Incidentally, even though I am a low-volume amateur compared to some of
> the pros here, since switching to digital in August of last year, I have
> saved more in film processing costs alone (not including the film
> itself) than I paid for my Canon 20D.
> 
> Nathan
> 
> Mark Rabiner wrote:

By "trade in", Nathan you mean you TRADED IN your entire Leica M system for
Canon EOS digital but you'd set yourself back up again with Leica again if
they come in for under 2500 Euro?

I hope that's not the case but if it was did you compare your letter sized
inkjet images against similar sized darkroom prints?
This I think has often NOT been the case with people talking like this.

It was more to the tune of they like their letter sized inkjet images better
than they liked their 4x6 machine prints.
So they then "had no more use for film".

And I really don't know where you fit into all this Nathan I'm only asking.

I think it's great digital has gotten people more involved in their
photography. They are making letter sized inkjets or bigger.
They are printing.

But I'm more impressed when I hear them talking about how they have no more
use for film when that comparison was made against similar sized darkroom
prints that they also made. Or even had made maybe custom.

My darkroom for many years has been set up for 20x24s.
I've made thousands of 16x20s. Only a few hundred 20x24's

I'm very happy with the 13x19 inkjets I'm making now.
And I'm sure will LOVE the 17X22s I could soon be making with the Epson 4000
if I go that route which is half a chance.

Comparing a letter inkjet print against an 8x10 is one thing.
But comparing a 16x20 or bigger darkroom print against a similar sized
inkjet is another.

I KNOW what my Leica's, Hasselblads and Rolleiflex can do with film because
I'm very familiar with output sizes which show what they can do off.
I can amaze myself with a loupe looking around those large prints. Or when I
just spot them I wear a magnifier thing on my head.

And I'm not about to so quickly trade in my darkroom for an office corner
filled with Epson's which come from digital captures.

The scans I make from my Leica and Hasselblad film are leagues ahead of my
digital captures.

Soon I'll have some drum scans made and really amaze myself at what can be
pulled from film.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/