Leica's future.. Fujifilm's future..

Atto said:
really do you think Cmos are better in terms of IQ than CCD? IMHO its completely in the opposite way.

And take a look of M9M vs. tmax and good scanner, I still prefer film by far.
Click to expand...




You have partially answered your own question. 🙂

If we keep resolution as being constant, two types of tone fidelity; color fidelity and gray tone fidelity are the prominent parameters to define IQ.

Color fidelity: Neither with film nor with semiconductor technology we were able to duplicate the colors in nature, however thru digital means we can play with and manipulate them as we wish; we can create any color hue we want to see on our subjects. So the minute differences in color rendering between CCD and CMOS can easily be offset with the movement of sliders in our PP programs. (Even color rendering amongst CMOS sensors differ slightly, see how reds are rendered by Canon hi-end cameras.)

Gray tone fidelity: Determines Dynamic Range, a very important parameter and it's an inherent characteristic of the sensor before the processor. It's impossible to add one more EV (stop) to the dynamic range of any digital picture (put aside HDR which is not the real way of dealing with dynamic range) through any PP if it is not available as the information captured by the sensor. In this regard the new CMOS sensors can reach to 14 Evs dynamic range even with APS-C size and the M9 or M9M feature 11.7 Evs..

With color higher Dynamic range results also in more hues of the same color; different shades of colors become more distinctive. Higher Dynamic Range helps us like a wide latitude film and can be employed for shadow recovery too. It may function for saving some hopeless pictures as well. See this example:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1112956/0
 
There is not really a technical reason to shoot film.
Click to expand...

I can see where he's coming from. After all he has to plug Leica's new offering.

However, having seen some sample images taken with the Monochrom, I am not entirely convinced by this statement.
 
Atto said:
really do you think Cmos are better in terms of IQ than CCD? IMHO its completely in the opposite way.
Click to expand...

Scientific imaging is where you want to look, if you want to draw conclusions like this, and in scientific imaging (electron microscopy, fluorescence microscopy, etc.) CMOS has in many areas caught up to CCD and in some areas overtaken it. In other applications CCD is still preferred.

But for the applications that most resemble pictorial photography, CMOS is for the last two years or so the way to go. That trend will accelerate if only because R&D money is pouring into CMOS.
 
Aristophanes said:
The sad common theme in both articles in how irrelevant film as a medium of photography has become, both technically and from a business perspective. They don't even position it as an alternative with cultural or nostalgic interest. It's just costly chemicals and processes or another assembly line adding cost for no growth and negative returns.
Click to expand...


I only use Fuji endoscopes. Their IQ is best.

.
 
BUT- but-what if. .. ...

BUT- but-what if. .. ...

I for one worry less and less about their future, and more about mine! Things like will the market share for film endure for the length of my ability to take photos? Will I ever give in to GAS and buy that Leica(what ever) I can't afford? What if I get that coveted beauty and 😱ALL THE FILM IS GONE!!!!!!!!!!😱 Yeah what then!!Oh well guess I'll just keep plodding along and enjoy what I do have. .. ... cause I'm really lucky already having the fine cameras and lenses I already own to use. A nice town to shoot in and some fine folks on the internet to learn from, thanks!😀 I believe both Fugifilm and Leica will endure probability much longer than I. 🙂








i
 
I don't see a long term future for Leica in camera bodies. Digital has commoditized camera bodies in the same way "quartz movements" commoditized wrist watches. There is no such thing as a "fine quartz movement" as there was a "fine Swiss movement" in the mechanical era. The $10 cheapo quartz watches keeps the same time as a $1500 luxury brand. There is a difference in this analogy, however. Watches are more of a jewelry item than cameras, and the higher prices are not for improved functionality as in the "Swiss movement" era. Now you're paying for what is essentially an expensive man bracelet than improved performance via a better mechanically engineerd precision movement.

My entry level Nikon? My $60 Quantaray 24mm that doubles as a APS-C 35? The $200 Nikon 35mm f1.8? All together I have less than $800 tied up in a kit that I defy you to tell me any real difference in output with an M8.

Digital has done to cameras what quartz movements have done to watches.

Except one problem for the luxury camera maker. Cameras aren't jewelry. (I'll refrain from a snarky comment...)

In the long run, Leica would be better served, IMO, being just a "luxury" lens manufacturer and make lenses in other mounts like Nikon and Canon. Sigma/Tamron have done nicely filling focal length gaps in the line-up for the big boys. Leica could be the luxury Tamron and give up bodies all together.

That's what I'd do if I was Leica CEO.
 
"There is not really a technical reason to shoot film."
starless said:
I can see where he's coming from. After all he has to plug Leica's new offering.

However, having seen some sample images taken with the Monochrom, I am not entirely convinced by this statement.
Click to expand...

^..actually it's more: "There is not really a technical reason to shoot film. But an M Monochrom doesn’t smell film and doesn’t give you the limitation of having only 36 frames in your camera. There are still some emotional reasons why to use film." These are from a top executive of Leica AG! 😱


Does this dude have any idea of why a lot of people still use film while having digital cameras too? Does he know that there are other reasons in photography than technical or emotional that are called "aesthetical" and "artistic" ? Did he listen to what Elliot Erwitt was telling in his last interview about digital or what Alex Webb said recently about film?

Also isn't it somewhat humiliating for all his M7 and MP customers who decided to buy them AFTER the introduction of the digital Leicas? Were these all because of some nostalgic feebleness?

He is not in diesel generator business to concentrate only on technical reasons.. We do not photograph for technical reasons.. I found it as "ugly commercialism" in photography "how can I get now some of the film users to buy the Monochrom?" Heheee! As if the Monochrome is the only digital camera in the world to shoot B&W, no other camera can shoot B&W and the Monochrome have modes of Tri-X, HP5+, Neopan 400, Acros, T-Max , Delta, FP4, Adox, Agfa, etc. 😀 (Leica saw these days too.. )
 
What you quoted above, and the next question that Mr. Daniel answered about film, clearly tell the story of Leica's future direction. It is digital bodies and new high-priced lenses, all aimed at an exclusive luxury market. There is no chance of seeing a new film body from Leica because "there is no real reason to stick with film".

Old successful lens designs will not be reprised because Leica cannot compete with its own past. "... there are millions of old lenses in the market and Leica is not planning to rebuild old designs. In our point of view it would lead backwards by just copying what we did in the past."

You're right, Mr. Daniel, doesn't "get it" about film. He doesn't understand the reasons why there is still a small market for film cameras and why many people continue to shoot film. But it doesn't matter, because film has become irrelevant to Leica. Leica is a digital company now, and a lens manufacturer.

"... we’re still producing M7 and MP cameras. We’re producing them because there is a demand for it — small, but quite stable. As long as this demand exists we will also be making these cameras."
Click to expand...

So that's it. If you want a Leica film camera, buy now or buy used. When the demand drops for the M7 and MP, Leica will cease manufacturing them.
 
The story for Fujifilm is not any better with respect to film than the Leica story. If you read the interview with Mr. Komori, it is clear that film has little place in Fujifilm's future. As last man standing in the movie film business, Fujifilm will milk their investment, expertise, and manufacturing capability until it is no longer profitable, but they have no more fundamental committment to film than that.

"Japan’s large film producer is reorganizing its core businesses. The classic film business has become irrelevant, says Komori. The company’s future rests on cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Only 1% of annual turnover comes from its traditional film business."
Click to expand...

Fujifilm has diversified itself to survive without its film division. It can probably survive even without its digital camera business. The reorganization of its core businesses is already in progress. Cosmetics and pharmaceuticals have far greater profit potential than either film manufacturing or sales of digital cameras.



I believe a few companies will continue to coat an ever-shrinking variety of emulsions and formats for some years to come, but the big players are all either now gone or going soon.

I'll shoot film as long as I can. When that is no longer possible, I'll coat my own glass plates, I suppose. 🙂
 
loquax ludens said:
What you quoted above, and the next question that Mr. Daniel answered about film, clearly tell the story of Leica's future direction. It is digital bodies and new high-priced lenses, all aimed at an exclusive luxury market. There is no chance of seeing a new film body from Leica because "there is no real reason to stick with film".

Old successful lens designs will not be reprised because Leica cannot compete with its own past. "... there are millions of old lenses in the market and Leica is not planning to rebuild old designs. In our point of view it would lead backwards by just copying what we did in the past."

You're right, Mr. Daniel, doesn't "get it" about film. He doesn't understand the reasons why there is still a small market for film cameras and why many people continue to shoot film. But it doesn't matter, because film has become irrelevant to Leica. Leica is a digital company now, and a lens manufacturer.



So that's it. If you want a Leica film camera, buy now or buy used. When the demand drops for the M7 and MP, Leica will cease manufacturing them.
Click to expand...

Is this what you understood from my post? Who asked Leica to stop producing digital and go film again? Is there anybody in this whole forum ever criticized Leica for introducing digital cameras? Read again..

We were talking about his subtle but substantial humiliation about those who still use film and film cameras. As a film user did you not get any smell? Why do you use film? For not being able to afford a $100 digital camera? Also do we need to give up using film to start using digital?

Everyone has their own reasons to use film and probably 90% of these reasons are not even technical. Was Mr. Daniel aware of these? Sure he was! But how to affect or influence the film users to drop their film cameras to buy his products..

Surely a lot of people would buy the new Leicas but still more people than the ones who own digital Leicas will keep on using film.

Undoubtedly my reaction to him would be the same if he were stating "There is no technical reason to shoot digital because we reduced our film body Leicas down to $1000 each."

Nonsense from the mouth of a top executive.. as if we need his comments to switch to digital.. BS..
 
NickTrop said:
I don't see a long term future for Leica in camera bodies. Digital has commoditized camera bodies in the same way "quartz movements" commoditized wrist watches. There is no such thing as a "fine quartz movement" as there was a "fine Swiss movement" in the mechanical era. The $10 cheapo quartz watches keeps the same time as a $1500 luxury brand. There is a difference in this analogy, however. Watches are more of a jewelry item than cameras, and the higher prices are not for improved functionality as in the "Swiss movement" era. Now you're paying for what is essentially an expensive man bracelet than improved performance via a better mechanically engineerd precision movement.

My entry level Nikon? My $60 Quantaray 24mm that doubles as a APS-C 35? The $200 Nikon 35mm f1.8? All together I have less than $800 tied up in a kit that I defy you to tell me any real difference in output with an M8.

Digital has done to cameras what quartz movements have done to watches.

Except one problem for the luxury camera maker. Cameras aren't jewelry. (I'll refrain from a snarky comment...)

In the long run, Leica would be better served, IMO, being just a "luxury" lens manufacturer and make lenses in other mounts like Nikon and Canon. Sigma/Tamron have done nicely filling focal length gaps in the line-up for the big boys. Leica could be the luxury Tamron and give up bodies all together.

That's what I'd do if I was Leica CEO.
Click to expand...

I'd do just what they are doing.

For decades Leica relied on hint the "pro" system, which required "pro" or "master printer" labs and facilities. not just a status symbol, Leica's got their cachet because they were real workhorses of photojournalism.

Big stumble when AF and microprocessors entered the realm, but still the Yuppies liked their bourgeoise cameras. And they still had access to professional finishing.

Huge stumble when analog stares into extinction by digital much faster than Leica or Kodak project (Fuji, Canon, Nikon, and barely, Pentax and Olympus, get it right). Suddenly you're $800 DSLR is starting to come close to the $6,000 Leica, because those Yuppies are only ever making 4x6's and the photojournalism market is starting to shred.

Leica suddenly looked very vulnerable to being a living antique.

But....by putting the processing in the camera and then the home computer, Leica has been able to move far beyond the home darkroom or "pro" photo lab clique.

Anyone with a home PC can now enjoy Leica's mystique, much of it well-earned, although the IQ part now a diminishing asset compared to the luxury brand association.

Digital has broadened the market enormously for Leica, just like suburban driveways made it possible to overspend on SUV's. Leica can afford to put far too many resources into quality of production compared to IQ value...and they still sell because of the conspicuous consumption desire.

No longer tied to film and the endgame of processing, Leica's market has exploded. M-mount is everywhere. If people want Leica lenses, so what? Make bodies, too. It's all about the brand.

As for film, none of the major camera manufacturers support film camera production anymore. They benefited enormously at the expense of film as now all those $'s going into processing are now going straight to more Leica glass and Monochrom bodies. Kodak and film users lose, Leica gains.
 
BobYIL said:
Everyone has their own reasons to use film and probably 90% of these reasons are not even technical. Was Mr. Daniel aware of these? Sure he was! But how to affect or influence the film users to drop their film cameras to buy his products.
Click to expand...

I rather read his intent behind the "technical reason" comment exactly the opposite from you: he added "technical" because there are clearly other reasons to shoot film, and he's trying to not be disparaging of any of them. "Technical" was a qualifier, to keep his comment from being overly expansive: "There is not really a reason to shoot film," is a far crazier statement. I really don't think he's imagining that an interview with him is going to sway folks into buying the jillion euro MM.
 
BobYIL said:
Is this what you understood from my post? Who asked Leica to stop producing digital and go film again? Is there anybody in this whole forum ever criticized Leica for introducing digital cameras? Read again..
Click to expand...

No Bob, I didn't get any of that from your post. All of my thoughts were from reading the two interviews. And I didn't say that you or anyone asked Leica to stop producing digital and go film again either. Perhaps you should read again?

My only comment that had to do with you was with respect to your comment

"Does this dude have any idea of why a lot of people still use film while having digital cameras too? Does he know that there are other reasons in photography than technical or emotional that are called "aesthetical" and "artistic" ? Did he listen to what Elliot Erwitt was telling in his last interview about digital or what Alex Webb said recently about film?"
Click to expand...
Probably one of us isn't interpreting the other correctly, but I understood your comment to mean that Mr. Daniel doesn't get why anyone would still want to use film, that it might be for reasons unrelated to the technical aspects he commented on.

BobYIL said:
We were talking about his subtle but substantial humiliation about those who still use film and film cameras. As a film user did you not get any smell? Why do you use film? For not being able to afford a $100 digital camera? Also do we need to give up using film to start using digital?

Everyone has their own reasons to use film and probably 90% of these reasons are not even technical. Was Mr. Daniel aware of these? Sure he was! But how to affect or influence the film users to drop their film cameras to buy his products..

Surely a lot of people would buy the new Leicas but still more people than the ones who own digital Leicas will keep on using film.

Undoubtedly my reaction to him would be the same if he were stating "There is no technical reason to shoot digital because we reduced our film body Leicas down to $1000 each."

Nonsense from the mouth of a top executive.. as if we need his comments to switch to digital.. BS..
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure I understood you.
 
I don't understand all the raving about the Fuji cameras. I bought, and sold quickly, a Fuji F30, X100, and X10 based on all the hype.

- didn't like the sensors' rendering
- pain in the butt to render the raw files on th EXR sensors
- crowded, fiddly controls; terrible menus

They just don't make the images of the quality I want, and I don't like working with them. Won't buy another.

The ancient Kodak sensor in my Oly E-1 and the modern Kodak design sensor in my M9 do a far better job. As also does the Sony sensor in my Ricoh GXR-M. And all three have better on tools, ergonomics, and menus. Whatever their limitations, they do a better job for me.

Leica's future? They're doing well just as they are. I hope they keep going at it the way they have been: they're getting it right for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom