Peter Klein
Well-known
Keeping up with the Joneses
Keeping up with the Joneses
Somebody mentioned that if you're satisfied with a camera, it's never obsolete. True, but only if you shoot only for yourself. And certainly not if you expect to sell any pictures.
Look at the stock agencies that now will only accept files of 8 mp native resolution. Not up-rezzed, native. Also look at how unacceptable any grain has become in photos. It's a combination of:
1. Not very well-informed businesspeople looking for trend, looking to "go with the leader," looking for a way to say "we're best." We don't accept those crummy out of date low resolution 6 mpix files, we only accept state of the art 8 mpix files.
2. Very clever marketing convincing enough people that grain is always bad, higher numbers are always better.
3. An artificial way to raise the bar so you don't have to deal with as many people. "Hey, J.B., if we stop accepting 6 mpix files, we don't have to deal with all those idiots with their old digital Rebels who think they can take pictures.
All this is based on nothing, and phoney, but it's how the commercial world works. In two years, they will be rejecting 8 mpix photos and only accepting 10-12. The fact that they are printing atrociously bad looking plasticy images where people look like Barbie dolls doesn't matter. Grain is bad, must use noise reduction. Most people accept the stuff they see regularly as normal, and things that look different as subnormal.
I remember shooting my Leica at a friend's 50th birthday party. Very dim light, ISO 1600 film and wide open Nokton or Summilux ASPH lenses, slow shutter speeds. My pictures captured the atmosphere of the party, unlike everyone else's flash pictures, which looked like the typical P&S flash pictures. But my friend's first reaction was, "but they're not sharp."
All of this increases the pressure on everyone, even advanced amateurs, to keep up with the latest, lest their pictures be deemed inadequate by the ignorant.
And despite all this, I would love a digital camera on which to use my Leica and V/C lenses. The R-D1 isn't it because of QC issues, short RF base and 1x viewfinder, making it impossible for this glasses wearer to use anything but a 50mm lens. But I hope something comes along soon. And I hope it lasts more than 3-5 years.
--Peter
Keeping up with the Joneses
Somebody mentioned that if you're satisfied with a camera, it's never obsolete. True, but only if you shoot only for yourself. And certainly not if you expect to sell any pictures.
Look at the stock agencies that now will only accept files of 8 mp native resolution. Not up-rezzed, native. Also look at how unacceptable any grain has become in photos. It's a combination of:
1. Not very well-informed businesspeople looking for trend, looking to "go with the leader," looking for a way to say "we're best." We don't accept those crummy out of date low resolution 6 mpix files, we only accept state of the art 8 mpix files.
2. Very clever marketing convincing enough people that grain is always bad, higher numbers are always better.
3. An artificial way to raise the bar so you don't have to deal with as many people. "Hey, J.B., if we stop accepting 6 mpix files, we don't have to deal with all those idiots with their old digital Rebels who think they can take pictures.
All this is based on nothing, and phoney, but it's how the commercial world works. In two years, they will be rejecting 8 mpix photos and only accepting 10-12. The fact that they are printing atrociously bad looking plasticy images where people look like Barbie dolls doesn't matter. Grain is bad, must use noise reduction. Most people accept the stuff they see regularly as normal, and things that look different as subnormal.
I remember shooting my Leica at a friend's 50th birthday party. Very dim light, ISO 1600 film and wide open Nokton or Summilux ASPH lenses, slow shutter speeds. My pictures captured the atmosphere of the party, unlike everyone else's flash pictures, which looked like the typical P&S flash pictures. But my friend's first reaction was, "but they're not sharp."
All of this increases the pressure on everyone, even advanced amateurs, to keep up with the latest, lest their pictures be deemed inadequate by the ignorant.
And despite all this, I would love a digital camera on which to use my Leica and V/C lenses. The R-D1 isn't it because of QC issues, short RF base and 1x viewfinder, making it impossible for this glasses wearer to use anything but a 50mm lens. But I hope something comes along soon. And I hope it lasts more than 3-5 years.
--Peter
zeos 386sx
Well-known
As I pointed out in a previous post, there is a difference between what might be considered obsolete for a camera maker and obsolete for a camera user.Nikon Bob said:
If my memory card is still working 10 years from now and my camera is still producing pictures that are acceptable for me then I defy anyone to say my camera is obsolete. Decades old, but useable, Leica M's are no more obsolete because of todays digital cameras that todays digital camera will be made obsolete because of advances in technology.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
zeos 386sx said:
You are perfectly correct in that a 10 year old digital camera is not obsolete if it still produces pictures satisfactory to the user. All I am saying is that you may not get that chance if the camera goes TU (love that term) in that 10 year span and is likely none repairable and I do not believe that they are designed for a service life of 10 years in the first place. If your memory card still works in 10 years how will you read it as it is likely several generations out of date by then. A user may be forced to upgrade long before they feel that they have any need to.
Bob
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Peter,Peter Klein said:
Your point is well taken - to a degree. If a professional photographer is faced with a "shoot-with-other-equipment-or-get-other-work" situation then the photographer has to decide if he wants to stay in business. However, I'm not certain that stock agencies or publishers will continue to raise the bar "just because".
I don't worry about photographers who buy cameras because they feel "pressure" to "keep up with the latest". I hope they buy tons of Leica cameras. The fact that they part with a useable camera for a silly reason does not make their camera obsolete.
Last edited:
Uncle Bill
Well-known
What I mean disposible is that the product life cycle for a digital camera is roughly the same length of time as a piece of consumer electronics roughly 6 months to a year and a half tops. To me, if I was a pro, does it make sense to take a hit every 2-3 years to upgrade my camera equipment when the specs change like a PC? Granted you will be holding onto the lenses. The other thing about disposible, if one of those mother boards goes on a DSLR or any digital camera from the anticiapted Leica Digital M to say a $100 Vivitar, it does not get fixed, it gets replaced and the part gets landfilled which in turn is a hit on the environment. Something else to contemplate. Some of those ingredients once leached into ground water are not very friendly to humans.
Bill
Bill
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Bob,Nikon Bob said:
Now I think we are getting to the real substance of this debate. How long will digital cameras last and what can be done about them if they do get TU (toes-up, totally-uncorked, truly-unusable, tied-up, technically-untied, take-your-pick).
One side of this argument assumes that digitals have a built-in, fill-in-the-blank-years until self-destruct obsolescence. That argument only flys if the camera companies don't make provisions to service TU cameras after a certain period.
It is my understanding that Leica maintains parts to service a product up to thirty years after production of that product ends. If they do that for the digital M (DM2, DM3, etc) then I have no worries about one of their cameras becoming unusable and obsolete because of their actions.
There are certainly arguments to be made for obsolescence because of changes in computer file formats, etc. but those problems can generally be handled with updates to firmware.
At this point I hear reports of a problem that hasn't been demonstrated.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I really have my doubts about trying to get a ten year old digital fixed at the manufacturer or a film camera for that matter as they are not obliged by law to maintain spare parts that long, I believe. That leaves aftermarket repairers such as DAG and I do not know of many specializing in repair of old digital cameras as yet anyway. In today's economy no company or dealer wants to carry a big inventory and that includes spare parts. With electronics changing so rapidly this only magnifies this problem as the number of different types of spare parts increases with major changes in components happening more quickly. It's been a slice, have a good night.
Bob
Bob
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Dag told me he wouldn't be working on Digital Leicas - though I did hear that he worked on an R-D1 for someone.
Leica has never been required by law to carry repair parts for as long as they do but they do it anyway. Its just one of the benefits that comes with buying one of those expensive Leicas. I personally doubt they will change their policy just because the cameras are digital.
Good night...
Leica has never been required by law to carry repair parts for as long as they do but they do it anyway. Its just one of the benefits that comes with buying one of those expensive Leicas. I personally doubt they will change their policy just because the cameras are digital.
Good night...
brightsky
Established
This is a particularly interesting thread.
I fully agree with those who opine the life cycle of the media, (especially that which is proprietary) used in digital cameras presents more of an obsolescence factor than the functionality of the camera itself.
Leica brand loyalty and exclusivity, as always, will be a draw for their digital M. By the projected timeframe of its release, (Fall of 2006) who knows what other digital rangefinder options may be competing for the market. Leica must break away from their normal pricing practices and present a camera superior to its contemporaries. They do not have Epson’s broad product base to carry them through any missteps.
At the current time, Epson’s RD-1 warranty is only one year and they have consistently replaced cameras returned. I wonder if Leica will offer their normal passport warranty and extension for their digital M.
I chose to jump in the water now, and am a satisfied RD-1 owner. Yes, there are some QC issues, but the pool of owners is small, thus magnifying both the issues and percentage of dissatisfied purchasers. Guessing, solely based on forum posted serial numbers, that less than half of Epson’s 10,000 unit allocation have been sold, there are actually very few unique owners that have chimed in on this and other photo sites, and an even smaller percentage who have returned their cameras for a refund. As with anything, one tends to hear the bad news rather the good. I believe Epson made a bold move with their digital RF and should be applauded. The very recent price drop of the RD-1 is not indicative of non-interest; rather it seems to be the normal cycle for digital cameras.
Hopefully, the very niche market of digital RFs will expand, which will be terrific news for all. Purchasing a new digital M will be out of my reach, but I will eagerly await its release nonetheless.
CM
I fully agree with those who opine the life cycle of the media, (especially that which is proprietary) used in digital cameras presents more of an obsolescence factor than the functionality of the camera itself.
Leica brand loyalty and exclusivity, as always, will be a draw for their digital M. By the projected timeframe of its release, (Fall of 2006) who knows what other digital rangefinder options may be competing for the market. Leica must break away from their normal pricing practices and present a camera superior to its contemporaries. They do not have Epson’s broad product base to carry them through any missteps.
At the current time, Epson’s RD-1 warranty is only one year and they have consistently replaced cameras returned. I wonder if Leica will offer their normal passport warranty and extension for their digital M.
I chose to jump in the water now, and am a satisfied RD-1 owner. Yes, there are some QC issues, but the pool of owners is small, thus magnifying both the issues and percentage of dissatisfied purchasers. Guessing, solely based on forum posted serial numbers, that less than half of Epson’s 10,000 unit allocation have been sold, there are actually very few unique owners that have chimed in on this and other photo sites, and an even smaller percentage who have returned their cameras for a refund. As with anything, one tends to hear the bad news rather the good. I believe Epson made a bold move with their digital RF and should be applauded. The very recent price drop of the RD-1 is not indicative of non-interest; rather it seems to be the normal cycle for digital cameras.
Hopefully, the very niche market of digital RFs will expand, which will be terrific news for all. Purchasing a new digital M will be out of my reach, but I will eagerly await its release nonetheless.
CM
zeos 386sx
Well-known
CM,
You get no argument from me on your conclusions. There are many film cameras in the world being slowly rendered obsolete not through loss of native functionality but through loss of the media that they use - film. I expect some digital camera obsolescence will occur in the same way as storage technology advances. If your old storage card fails and you can’t find a new one your camera will be rendered obsolete.
You are also correct in your Epson/Leica comparison. Worldwide, Epson has a technological and financial depth that dwarfs Leica. If Leica is to compete in the same market with companies like Epson then its products will have to be SUPERB and, for their price, offer a life expectancy that extends far beyond what we consider the normal lifespan of consumer electronics. I would be shocked if Leica doesn’t give consideration to that fact daily.
You get no argument from me on your conclusions. There are many film cameras in the world being slowly rendered obsolete not through loss of native functionality but through loss of the media that they use - film. I expect some digital camera obsolescence will occur in the same way as storage technology advances. If your old storage card fails and you can’t find a new one your camera will be rendered obsolete.
You are also correct in your Epson/Leica comparison. Worldwide, Epson has a technological and financial depth that dwarfs Leica. If Leica is to compete in the same market with companies like Epson then its products will have to be SUPERB and, for their price, offer a life expectancy that extends far beyond what we consider the normal lifespan of consumer electronics. I would be shocked if Leica doesn’t give consideration to that fact daily.
Last edited:
R
RML
Guest
Ben Z said:
The number of pixels doesn't mean much to me. I find that the images produced with my R-D1 look much better, more vibrant, more film-like (the blasphemy!) than those produced by my Eos 300D/Rebel. And I guess that very difference in image character is why Epson went for the Nikon sensor instead for teh Canon sensor. IMO they made the right choice.
Hektor
Leicapile
To quote zeos 386sx
<<You are also correct in your Epson/Leica comparison. Worldwide, Epson has a technological and financial depth that dwarfs Leica. If Leica is to compete in the same market with companies like Epson then its products will have to be SUPERB and, for their price, offer a life expectancy that extends far beyond what we consider the normal >>
Do we need giant companies to make our cameras ?
Cameras are usually used by one man.......
Cameras are usually repaired and serviced by one man.......
Some of the best ones were designed by one man....... Barnack ?
All we need is an excellent, durable, camera and a good one to one relationship.
I don't need it to be a big rich corporation, but it's OK if they can hack it as well.
As far as cost is concerned, it costs what it costs, - when you buy a Leica you are buying the company with the camera, does it matter whether they are big or small.
I hear that Leica management and employees say the first 75 years are the hardest.
<<You are also correct in your Epson/Leica comparison. Worldwide, Epson has a technological and financial depth that dwarfs Leica. If Leica is to compete in the same market with companies like Epson then its products will have to be SUPERB and, for their price, offer a life expectancy that extends far beyond what we consider the normal >>
Do we need giant companies to make our cameras ?
Cameras are usually used by one man.......
Cameras are usually repaired and serviced by one man.......
Some of the best ones were designed by one man....... Barnack ?
All we need is an excellent, durable, camera and a good one to one relationship.
I don't need it to be a big rich corporation, but it's OK if they can hack it as well.
As far as cost is concerned, it costs what it costs, - when you buy a Leica you are buying the company with the camera, does it matter whether they are big or small.
I hear that Leica management and employees say the first 75 years are the hardest.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Yes, it matters if Leica is "big or small".Hektor said:
Let me requote CM (brightsky): "They (Leica) do not have Epson’s broad product base to carry them through any missteps." CM is correct in that assessment. In principle it doesn't matter what size company makes our cameras. However, in Leica's current financial condition, if Leica doesn't get it right the first time there probably will not be a second chance. Epson could drop the entire R-D1 line and mark it off their books as small change.
Hektor
Leicapile
Zeos, <<Epson could drop the entire R-D1 line and mark it off their books as small change.>>
I think they will, sooner or later, it's par for their style......
Consider my M3ds ......
It was made when I was 8 years old......
It's cruised through it's first 50 years with one overhaul because it got dropped in the sea....
I reckon it's gonna be in better shape than me when we are 108,
tell that to epson !!!!
I'm a bit worried about Kodak and Ilford though .........
I think they will, sooner or later, it's par for their style......
Consider my M3ds ......
It was made when I was 8 years old......
It's cruised through it's first 50 years with one overhaul because it got dropped in the sea....
I reckon it's gonna be in better shape than me when we are 108,
tell that to epson !!!!
I'm a bit worried about Kodak and Ilford though .........
VinceC
Veteran
>>when you buy a Leica you are buying the company with the camera, does it matter whether they are big or small.<<
In 1950, Leitz had 4,200 employees, according company lilterature. It became a small company when, having wildly popularized the 35mm format, it didn't adapt its models to the SLR revolution. According to the 1953 edition of the Leica Manual, the camera was "conceived as a pocket camera, convenient for tourists, sportsman and weekend photographers. "
In 1950, Leitz had 4,200 employees, according company lilterature. It became a small company when, having wildly popularized the 35mm format, it didn't adapt its models to the SLR revolution. According to the 1953 edition of the Leica Manual, the camera was "conceived as a pocket camera, convenient for tourists, sportsman and weekend photographers. "
Hektor
Leicapile
p.s. its 50f1.5 Summarit came through OK as well !
Hektor
Leicapile
Vince, well it is a pocket camera,........ compared to a Hasselblad, or a Speedgraphic.
sgy1962
Well-known
An interesting question would be to ask yourself why you shoot a rangefinder or a Leica rangfinder, if that is the case; whether ther e is a digital product out there which captures those reasons; and what product Leica would have to market which embodies those reasons. For me, off the top of my head, the reasons are they are small; simple to use; I like the mechanical nature of the rangefinder; the lack of a lot of electronics forces you to make decisions; the available light nature of the camera, which is a combination of less camera shake and fast lenses; and the great optics available.
sgy1962
Well-known
You could also add to that list the useful life of the product, which is very, very long.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Nikon Bob said:
Yes, Bob, that's the principle behind the system, which keeps markets running. It has ALWAYS been the principle behind the system. But I think our prob nowadays is that the digital revolution starting in the 80s has accelerated innovation circles so much, that the downfall of quality ( which is necessarily connected to the acceleration) begins to make us angry. Things begin to lose their worth which is, as we are told , not too bad because we get a new thingy soon.
An elder gent here recently asked, why is progress always paid with a downfall of quality ? Well this is the answer.
For many the main fascination of a new Leica M or another 40yo rangefinder ( or SLR , TLR) is to get a product , that has stayed untouched by this acceleration, it still has a worth and KEEPS it .
Best,
Bertram