Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Erwin, you bring up interesting points and I for was glad to see some email that didn't have to do with net porn, lawsuits, blackmail, etc. It's important to put Fuji's comments in context. Did they mean that they expect to stop producing 135-format film in 4 years? I seriously doubt it. Leica as an endagered species? Maybe. Anyway, here are some random thoughts both pro and con. 1) Remember that there is still a huge installed base of 35mm cameras out there that isn't going away anytime soon. The public's investments investments in 35mm equipment is safe for the forseeable future. There's just too big a business out there for Kodak, Fuji, et al to ignore. 2) By the time digital has sufficient quality to replace 35mm, one would assume that the technology will have advanced to the point where it actually provides superior resolution, contrast, color rendition, etc., to film. When this happens, the need for superior optics will be even greater. From a business perspective, the simplest thing for manufacturers to do will be to adapt their existing systems to shoot some digital media, in much the same way as Nikon and Canon are already doing in partnership with Kodak. I can easily imagine Leica replacing the little swing-out door (that hold the pressure plate) with something that has a CCD panel on it to record the image. Imagine the size of the market for devices along the lines of the expected "IMAGEK" device that looks like a roll of film to the camera. 3) Right now, the digital world is in transition. Today, we're basically talking about image sensors -- devices that take an image assembled by some optical system and record it with a CCD sensor. During this transition, our investments in 35mm are safe because, as I say above, manufacturers will find retrofitting existing camera systems the most expedient course to the largest market. 4) In the case of the Leica M, it will probably have to be Leica itself which provides the digital interface since the installed base of this camera is so comparatively small. Companies like Irvine sensors entering the digital back market take the Canon EOS, Nikon, Minolta cameras into account long before Leica R or M, just like aftermarket lens manufacturers do now with thier lenses. If I were doing product planning at Irvine sensors, I would spend no time even thinking about compatibility with Leica in general if there was any significant engineering effort involved. So long as I hit Canon, Nikon, Minolta, I'd be happy. 5) The real danger (and death knell) for 135 and Leica will come when the optical system is no longer a part of the equation. At some point, I'm convinved that we will have some kind of real-world 3d scanning technology that will scan a scene, providing the ability to render it from any angle or recreate it in all it's dimensions at a later time. This is a long, long way off, but when this happens, all of today's cameras will be useless except, maybe, for use by artists. 6) So, the REAL reasons for the current crop of Leicas being endangered is too far off for any of us to worry about it. However, I'm concerned about the general lack of interest in really high quality that I see in young people. I often carry around a Canon Optura and use it once in a while where I work at Microsoft. People just ga-ga over that silly thing. I tell them that the quality is generally mediocre, but they don't care. What counts and what's "cool" is the fact that it's "digital" and you can get results into your computer immediately. When I'm shooting with the Optura and the Leicas at the same time, young people generally are very, very turned on by the Optura and don't give the Leicas a second look. Image quality doesn't seem to mean much to them. Instant gratification does. Most of my colleagues are asking about digital, not film cameras. - --Jim Laurel