Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:07:13 -0700 (PDT) > From: Byron Rakitzis <leica@rakitzis.com> > Subject: Re: [Leica] How to manage a camera company? > > Okay, I can't help throwing in my particular piece of heresy. > > Perhaps because I live here in Silicon Valley, and though I cringe as > I type it, I have to point out that the days of film are numbered. > > Without any data to back it up, I'll just say that the days of brisk > 35mm camera sales are over. Their heyday was surely in the 60s and 70s. > > So if there's really a future for Leica, it will be either an R or M > mount digital camera, or perhaps a digital camera with a new autofocus > lens mount with Leica glass. > > Let me say that this belief of mine has nothing to do with the way > I actually use M cameras. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool film user. But I > really fail to see how any incremental improvement in the R or M line > (autofocus? auto exposure? motor drive? be serious!) will turn around > Leica's troubles. > > Byron. > I disagree. For various reasons, digital film has not shown that it is capable of producing images with the same quality as traditional films. While digital does improve and will probably capture the consumer market before to long, I believe a film-based alternative will be around for professionals and serious amateurs for some time. For some applications, digital has already taken over. Newspaper are becoming more and more reliant on digital. That said, most newspapers are still a hybrid, with film used in cameras and then scanned for publication. Also, a backlash is forming among papers and photographers. I am seeing more and more "proudly still using film" tags on the end of wanted ads and hearing about top photographers who refuse to shoot digital unless absolutely necessary. Magazines are still film-based and will probably remain so for some time. Images on digital cameras, even the high-end Kodak and Fuji ones do not look the same as their film counterparts and many, myself included, argue that they do not look as good. The phenomena of digital, IMHO, will follow the same path as video. A couple of decades ago, many families owned a Super 8 or 16mm camera and projector. The arrival of video destroyed the amateur motion film market. Television news and low-budget commercial photographers all went to video (although they mostly use Beta, Super VHS or some other higher-end variant of the technology than VHS) Now the only people who use 16mm cameras are making documentaries or student films. Yet the motion picture and advertising industries stayed with film. Television studios flirted with video, but most shows on today are shot on film. While nothing is inherently wrong with the look of video, its different look has come to define cheapness and amateurism. I believe digital images will come to be viewed the same way, with film the mark of a professional and the artist and digital the signature of the cheap and ordinary.