Has Leica alienated photographers?

[bobkonos]

I could not vote because I need the choice: "No, because I did not drink the Leica digital Kool-Aid. As such, I find their digital offerings merely amusing." As for film offerings, the M-A is still intriguing to me.

 

[dave lackey]

I could not vote because I need the choice: "No, because I did not drink the Leica digital Kool-Aid. As such, I find their digital offerings merely amusing." As for film offerings, the M-A is still intriguing to me.

^THAT!!!^😀😀😀

 

[giganova]

If they ever go out of business it will be a mental catastrophe.

I doubt that this would ever happen:

1) There is a billionaire waiting somewhere who can't wait to step in and feel good about "saving" Leica. This has happened before.
2) Leica Cameras is only a small part of the Leica/Leitz business; they make most of their money with b2b products.

 

[dave lackey]

This whole thread is amusing actually. For me, I bought in with the IIIF, moved up to the Leica R4 and R8, then, the Leica X1 and then the M3 and M6 all the while looking for an affordable digital Leica M camera that I would not likely have a problem with...

Just when it looked as if I could afford a used M9, bang! They moved my cheese.😛

There is no way now to consolidate to just a Leica M digital. Alienated me? Sure. But then, as pointed out above, the pricing has always been higher for the name brand and Leica has always alienated people. It was just my turn.😱 I am irrelevant.

Am I bitter? No way. Am I whining? No way. But I do have a more mature perspective of the Leica Kool-Aid as Bob mentioned. Is there a Leica Digital M in my future? Probably not... I find the D3x and D4/Df much more capable for what I am looking for in performance if I really want to get back into professional work. For hobby/snaps/family photos... like I said, it is amusing and I keep on shooting Acros 100 and Eastman 5222. The X1 is doing fine too.

Those that just have to have digital M's, rock on!! Somebody's gotta keep the mother company alive!:angel: Just be gentle with them as the used market may need your mint cameras for us bottom feeders.

 

[giganova]

For the price of one MM or SL body, I can shoot, develop and scan 100 rolls of HP-5 for the next 15 years! Plus I would need lenses. That's why I am not tempted to get a digital Leica. 😀

 

[Cameron]

Compared to 35mm film, a Sony RX100 is all you will ever need. I've sold all of my other digital cameras.

What do you mean when you say "compared to film"? Just curious to how it relates.

 

[Keith]

Aside from price (not that bad IMO) I think the latest move with the SL provides proof that Leica is thinking about actual working photographers and not the camera wearers. I see one group being alienated while the other group applauds.

 

[uhoh7]

For the price of one MM or SL body, I can shoot, develop and scan 100 rolls of HP-5 for the next 15 years! Plus I would need lenses. That's why I am not tempted to get a digital Leica. 😀

The MM and SL are benchmarks for you. I'd say that's the opposite of alienation 🙂

Not that you ever claimed to be alienated, but I think this is a measure of the somewhat unexpected vigor of Leica the camera and lens maker today.

Maybe they will even be smart enough to do a Barnack sized M mount EVIL for 2900USD. That would be genius, but they would have to figure out how to make a bunch. Panasonic could help. I'm not sure they are that ambitious, but the clamour for such a camera, the "interchangeable Q" is getting louder. Maybe somebody else, like Cosina will see the opportunity.

 

[jaapv]

For the price of one MM or SL body, I can shoot, develop and scan 100 rolls of HP-5 for the next 15 years! Plus I would need lenses. That's why I am not tempted to get a digital Leica. 😀

I am more concerned with the amount of darkroom work needed -aka waste of scarce time- and the amount of control in processing the images. That brings the balance down in favour of a digital camera rather heavily.
Scanned film diminishes the film character too much for me. One could just as well -or rather better- use a sensor in the first place and cut out the film bit. A hybrid workflow combines the drawbacks of both film and digital.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I am more concerned with the amount of darkroom work needed -aka waste of scarce time- and the amount of control in processing the images. That brings the balance down in favour of a digital camera rather heavily.
Scanned film diminishes the film character too much for me. One could just as well -or rather better- use a sensor in the first place and cut out the film bit. A hybrid workflow combines the drawbacks of both film and digital.

Highlight: That's my feeling too, though it does make it easier to get some "looks".

I'd not call darkroom time a "waste", though.

Cheers,

R.

 

[icebear]

...

Maybe they will even be smart enough to do a Barnack sized M mount EVIL for 2900USD. That would be genius, but they would have to figure out how to make a bunch. Panasonic could help. I'm not sure they are that ambitious, but the clamour for such a camera, the "interchangeable Q" is getting louder. Maybe somebody else, like Cosina will see the opportunity.

It looks like the Q is a really smart move by Leica.
I'll find out myself in a couple of weeks or month, not sure how long it takes ...
If they had introduced an M w/o an optical vf everybody and his grandmother would have screamed hell at them.
Doing it the other way around and people are asking for it 🙄

 

[photomoof]

Scanned film diminishes the film character too much for me. One could just as well -or rather better- use a sensor in the first place and cut out the film bit. A hybrid workflow combines the drawbacks of both film and digital.

Agreed...

I hate scans, but if I were to return to film, I cannot imagine myself actually scanning chromes. That would be a gruesome experience. I would have them printed as I always have.

 

[Emile de Leon]

Leica has successfully moved from film to digital..and that is good..it could have been worse..
But..I just use my Lumix G series cams and Sony A7 series..
Would like a digital M or an SL ..maybe..
..but really..thats a lot of bread to shell out..for what it delivers..
And then..there are the possible QC issues..
But the files look real good...
Maybe that's worth..the price of admission..

 

[ian_watts]

Scanned film diminishes the film character too much for me. One could just as well -or rather better- use a sensor in the first place and cut out the film bit. A hybrid workflow combines the drawbacks of both film and digital.

Personally I think a hybrid workflow combines the advantages of both. The superior (IMO) tonality and "character" of film and the post editing ease of digital. I disagree that "one could just as well use a sensor" – it isn't the same thing at all*. If that was the case you might as well suggest that Hollywood DPs and directors still shooting with film are wasting their time – after all, motion pictures film footage is (and has been for decades) scanned and edited digitally.

*it's not as if most of us haven't used both film and digital for years – long enough to understand the fundamental difference and judge things for ourselves.

 

[bonatto]

Personally I think a hybrid workflow combines the advantages of both. The superior (IMO) tonality and "character" of film and the post editing ease of digital. I disagree that "one could just as well use a sensor" – it isn't the same thing at all*. If that was the case you might as well suggest that Hollywood DPs and directors still shooting with film are wasting their time – after all, motion pictures film footage is (and has been for decades) scanned and edited digitally.

*it's not as if most of us haven't used both film and digital for years – long enough to understand the fundamental difference and judge things for ourselves.

Not to mention the considerable potential time savings in post-production.

 

[sjones]

By the time I switched from digital to film, I had already been converting all of my RAW files to monochrome (at least the ones worth ‘keeping’). I had intended to still use digital 60 percent to 80 percent of the time given the presumed costs and ‘inconveniences’ of film.

However, after scanning my first role through the Nikon scanner, I never used my DSLR again. For what I had to use as a reference—-having never been a darkroom—-the characteristics of the scanned film were notable enough to replace digital altogether.

Now whether these difference are consistent in degree or even aesthetically pertinent in all cases, as I can easily point to countless excellent B&W digital shots in this site alone, are matters of subjectivity and such.

But even if no difference existed between the two formats, I would still shoot film because I love the process alone.

Moreover, one of the major reasons for switching to film, which I was initially reluctant to do, was to be able to afford a rangefinder; the then Leica M8 was far out of my price range. I do recall looking at Zeiss rumors to see if they would be putting out a less expensive digital rangefinder, preferably full frame. Probably good that I didn’t wait.

I started with a Bessa R2M, still a great camera, but after owning a Leica iiif and now an M2, I no longer want, let alone need, any other camera. Purely a tactile consideration. So if Leica is alienating photographers, they have at least left me with the perfect camera.

Anyway, once I relocate up north, I do intend to start making wet prints. The digital image is not the issue with me as much as it is the inkjet—-a purely psychological issue on my behalf, but one that I’ve not been able to shake.

So even if you start hybrid yet feel it inferior to a pure darkroom process or just want to mix it up, you can still use the negatives in an enlarger; they are not contaminated.

 

[ian_watts]

The digital image is not the issue with me as much as it is the inkjet—-a purely psychological issue on my behalf, but one that I’ve not been able to shake.

So even if you start hybrid yet feel it inferior to a pure darkroom process or just want to mix it up, you can still use the negatives in an enlarger; they are not contaminated.

Indeed. Nor is anyone restricted to inkjet prints when it comes to printing scanned files. There is also the option of conventional prints – most decent labs will be able to output high quality lambda or lightjet digital c-types at modest cost.

 

[jaapv]

Personally I think a hybrid workflow combines the advantages of both. The superior (IMO) tonality and "character" of film and the post editing ease of digital. I disagree that "one could just as well use a sensor" – it isn't the same thing at all*. If that was the case you might as well suggest that Hollywood DPs and directors still shooting with film are wasting their time – after all, motion pictures film footage is (and has been for decades) scanned and edited digitally.

*it's not as if most of us haven't used both film and digital for years – long enough to understand the fundamental difference and judge things for ourselves.

You do realise that you use a sensor to scan your film?

 

[robbeiflex]

I don't understand this statement: Leica lenses will last and be relevant for decades. So will today's Leica film bodies. Digital camera bodies will have a limited shelf life due to the nature and fast pace of digital technology.

It won't always be that way. Many of us use 2009 technology and are perfectly happy with it. Not everyone needs night vision iso and print on a billboard resolution. Product cycles are getting longer and innovation opportunities more limited. Look at how long Canon took to update the 7D and Nikon the D700, and then tell me this technology is changing quickly. Leica is not an outlier here, the market now is not what it was when the M8 was announced. (And yet many still use M8s happily.) Meanwhile smart phones are stealing the bread and butter of mainstream camera makers, but not impacting the top end of the market.

I think Leica is not alienating photographers, it is rather preparing for a future where dedicated cameras are in a niche market, and it is lining itself up to cater to photographers in that market quite well. (OK, and rich luxury buyers too, but someone has to subsidize the rest of us!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[giganova]

My wife and I have a deal:

The day we win the lottery, we would go to the nearest Porsche dealer and buy a 911. On the way back I'd drop her off at the most expensive shoe store and I'd drive to the Leica store and get me an M with three lenses. Until that day, every day is like the day before Christmas! 😀