Lack of affordable new cameras = death knell for film photography?

[blockend]

No, my point was about them being good lenses for photography as such

Unless you do a quick edit, people can read what you actually said.

and it being a mistake to judge then on an electronic sensor.

I agree, but why pay top dollar for a new lens if you own something as good?

Your ennitial comment implied that film was somehow more tolerant of these lenses

In my experience it is. This is partly because it's an analogue to analogue medium. If you're scanning film you are almost certainly getting less data from the negative than a manual lens on a digital body. Data may not be important to you, and there's no reason why it should be. Some of my favourite lenses are objectively lousy but subjectively wonderful. On film and digital cameras.

because it is supposedly an inferior sensor

Not inferior, different. Some of the differences are technical.

film is in fact the higher resolution sensor.

That's meaningless. Size for size? Chromes? Colour negative? Fast, slow, brands? How do you intend extracting the data? What equivalence are you using?

The lenses designed for film are not as tele centric

Mostly true..

and doesn't need to be

...unless you're using them on a digital body.

The vintage lenses are in fact very good overall

Which? Taylor Hobson? Wollensak? A Canon EF prime from the c21st?

It's just that testing of the differences haven't been very systematic and rigorous.

You'll have to indicate where I went wrong. Then you'll have to say which non-Bayer sensor you use.

 

[Helge]

Unless you do a quick edit, people can read what you actually said.

I agree, but why pay top dollar for a new lens if you own something as good?

In my experience it is. This is partly because it's an analogue to analogue medium. If you're scanning film you are almost certainly getting less data from the negative than a manual lens on a digital body.

Not inferior, different. Some of the differences are technical.

That's meaningless. Size for size? Chromes? Colour negative? Fast, slow, brands? How do you intend extracting the data? What equivalence are you using?

Mostly true..

...unless you're using them on a digital body.

Which? Taylor Hobson? Wollensak? A Canon EF prime from the c21st?

You'll have to indicate where I went wrong. Then you'll have to say which non-Bayer sensor you use.

Please point out my inconsistency?

An electronic sensor is just as analog as film. The main (notice I'm not saying only) difference is in the huge amount of processing the image is put through, that has been designed exclusively for use on images from digital cameras.

The vast majority of scanners are terrible for a number of reasons.
The true way to judge film photos is with a well made print or projection of a slide.

And I take it for a given that we are talking 135 35x24 lenses here. Why would we really talk about anything else in this context?
The lenses made from about the sixties (where SLRs really take off) to the end of manual focus lenses, is also probably what I'd include in a discussion of optimally designed vintage lenses.
Though some on either side would of course still apply naturally.

 

[blockend]

Please point out my inconsistency?

This is an analogue forum, and we've taken up too much space talking about digital cameras already. I made a point in passing and in context, and I stick by my subsequent points because they are empirical - from observation. You are entitled to disagree, politely if you want a response in kind. I don't care enough about film-digital camera comparisons to labour a point I took great effort to satisfy myself on. If you're getting what you require from a lens on either technology, that is literally all that matters. I'm done on the subject.

 

[Helge]

This is an analogue forum, and we've taken up too much space talking about digital cameras already. I made a point in passing and in context, and I stick by my subsequent points because they are empirical - from observation. You are entitled to disagree, politely if you want a response in kind. I don't care enough about film-digital camera comparisons to labour a point I took great effort to satisfy myself on. If you're getting what you require from a lens on either technology, that is literally all that matters. I'm done on the subject.

Have I been anything but polite?

I think 17 - 20 and 24 applies here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right#Synopsis

 

[dutchsteammachine]

My Mamiya 645 300mm f5.6 ULD beats my Tamron 70-300mm f4,5-5.6 VC SP DI and my Canon FD 300mm f5.6.

I love adapting Mamiya glass to my Nikon F camera's the results are breathtaking.

Manual focus heaven compared to the AF-D and AF-S plastic feeling rings.

 

[Huss]

Wonder if they still service the F5?

Give them a call. Or email.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

What's the harm in what Negative Supply and Leica are doing? These are non-essential products catering to a very niche audience, and neither firms are seeking to monopolize the market. In fact, you have quite a few alternatives available to you at a wide range of prices. If you want to see a real racket, just look at the USA market for nutritional supplements.

As someone with most of the Negative Supply products in regular use in my lab, absolutely nothing. Their offerings were just what I needed at just the right time. With Leica they've positioned themselves as a luxury good, the problem is their stuff doesn't really live up to expectations. A Leica M-A may well be a lifetime investment. The M10 not so much, yet it costs double what you might pay for a professional Canon or Nikon. Then you have their terrible after sales service and recent record of completely botched products. The M8 requires IR filters and they didn't know at launch, the 18mp CCD destroys itself all on it's own, even the replacements. The AF in the S lenses would just off itself and fixes would take months and months. Basically they had to start getting Panasonic to start making the most of their decent cameras before they put a reasonable product to market. That's why the S̶1̶R̶ ...SL2 is so good. The thing that's always irritated me about Leica really though is that they could maintain their high priced status by offering an M for $1000 to $1500 dollars more than what a D810/5DIV costs. Instead they just go the extra mile making it completely unaffordable to most users. Just a stick in the eye from the photographic 1%.

 

[Pioneer]

I have to agree with NortheastPhotographic on the Leica issues. I have owned several Leica cameras over the years including a few of their digital offerings.

I still own the MA and use it all the time. But I know that just getting it serviced when that time comes will cost a lot more than most cameras even cost.

However, the lenses are astounding, even some of those that aren't made by Leica itself.

 

[4season]

With Leica they've positioned themselves as a luxury good, the problem is their stuff doesn't really live up to expectations... The M10 ...costs double what you might pay for a professional Canon or Nikon. Then you have their terrible after sales service and recent record of completely botched products. The M8 requires IR filters and they didn't know at launch, the 18mp CCD destroys itself all on it's own, even the replacements. ... The thing that's always irritated me about Leica really though is that they could maintain their high priced status by offering an M for $1000 to $1500 dollars more than what a D810/5DIV costs. Instead they just go the extra mile making it completely unaffordable to most users. Just a stick in the eye from the photographic 1%.

Gosh NEP, if you wanted out-of-the-box perfection, you should've bought Japanese like everyone else [lol]. Okay I'm being a bit facetious: As a longtime Leica owner, I'm familiar with issues with the M-system and sport optics, at least up to 2012, and my advice to someone wanting to buy a digital M system today would be to skip any of the camera bodies incorporating CCD sensors and not to expect perfection, even if you just bought a special edition costing 50K USD. You will still need to mind your manners when calling for assistance and repairs shall take as long as they take. You may reasonably expect that they will live up to the terms of the warranty, but the last time I checked, this did not include overnight shipment of replacement camera bodies, even if you are a Very Important Person or otherwise "entitled". Spares or replacements for items specific to special editions are not available, and odds of encountering at least minor issues such as slight vertical misalignment of the rangefinder are fairly high, but most will not impact your ability to take the camera out into the world and take good photos. If someone goes above and beyond to deliver something extra, be grateful. Leica products can be beta-quality and that's just life.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Gosh NEP, if you wanted out-of-the-box perfection, you should've bought Japanese like everyone else [lol]. Okay I'm being a bit facetious: As a longtime Leica owner, I'm familiar with issues with the M-system and sport optics, at least up to 2012, and my advice to someone wanting to buy a digital M system today would be to skip any of the camera bodies incorporating CCD sensors and not to expect perfection, even if you just bought a special edition costing 50K USD. You will still need to mind your manners when calling for assistance and repairs shall take as long as they take. You may reasonably expect that they will live up to the terms of the warranty, but the last time I checked, this did not include overnight shipment of replacement camera bodies, even if you are a Very Important Person or otherwise "entitled". Spares or replacements for items specific to special editions are not available, and odds of encountering at least minor issues such as slight vertical misalignment of the rangefinder are fairly high, but most will not impact your ability to take the camera out into the world and take good photos. If someone goes above and beyond to deliver something extra, be grateful. Leica products can be beta-quality and that's just life.

There was a time before lab owning that I would have LOVED to own an M10. I had an M4 and a 35/2 Biogon and made some lovely images with it (https://sperryphoto.com/an-american-mill). More recently when I wanted a mechanical type 35mm camera I did consider getting back into RFs. The cost of lenses though is just a little tough to swallow. I picked up an LX and the 31, 43, & 77mm FA lenses for basically the cost of a single decent Voigtlander lens.

 

[AndyH]

In my opinion, which may not be popular, Leitz began the transition to a maker of luxury goods rather than professional tools when they brought out their first SLR. and has been headed down that road ever since. The original 1966 Leicaflex lacked TTL metering, which had been available in several Japanese models for a few years. In addition to the normal lens, the only additional lenses were the 35mm, 50mm, 90mm and 135mm focal lengths. While the quality remained superb, very few professionals took to the system, and the price kept all but the most affluent amateurs from considering it. In 1968 they finally got TTL metering, but the lens range did not expand much. By 1970 a Leicaflex was going for $738 ($2,600 in 2020 dollars) while you could get a Nikon FTN for just $381 ($1,345 in 2020). 1970 Leicaflex lenses included a single model each in focal lengths of 21, 35, 50, 90, 135, and 180mm. The 50 was the only f2, and most of these cost half as much or more than the Leicaflex itself. By comparison, Nikon offered lenses from the 6.5mm fisheye to the 1000mm supertelephoto. Leica's 35mm f2.8 went for a pricey $213 as a basic street lens, while Nikon offered an equally good f2.8 model for $179.50 and a fast f2 for just six bucks more than the Leica f2.8 model. Nikon's wonderful 200 mm was only $219 and Leica's 180 mm was nearly twice the price. I could go on, but you can see where this is going.

Nikon and Pentax both offered well-finished durable cameras, full lens ranges, and a reputation for ruggedness that was well earned, at about half the price. No professional on a budget or needing a rugged camera would have even considered a Leicaflex, although many stuck with their Leica RF models for many years. Eventually the superiority of the SLR system for many professional uses (particularly close in and long lens work) made the decision a non-decision. Pros working in the field went to Nikon (and eventually Canon, as their glass became great) and studio pros stuck to medium format.

Leica became the Montblanc of cameras then, and has been so ever since. They still make wonderful gear, but it's not rugged or versatile enough for most professional use and too expensive for all but the most status conscious and affluent amateurs.

That said, I'd love to have a "modern" Leica (and the used Leicaflexes are now relatively cheap on the used market). I've stuck to the Barnack Leicas, and I love them - the best fit and finish of any of my many cameras. I'd love to own an M-4 or even M-6, but I'd have to trade virtually all of my other kit to afford one. I can't afford that kind of scratch for what basically is a necklace with an amulet on it.

Love the brand, love the quality, but it's just not worth it to many of us who didn't buy into the systems many years ago. This makes me a little sad.

Andy

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have to agree with NortheastPhotographic on the Leica issues. I have owned several Leica cameras over the years including a few of their digital offerings.

I still own the MA and use it all the time. But I know that just getting it serviced when that time comes will cost a lot more than most cameras even cost.

However, the lenses are astounding, even some of those that aren't made by Leica itself.

Nothing beats a good piece of glass.

 

[4season]

There was a time before lab owning that I would have LOVED to own an M10. I had an M4 and a 35/2 Biogon and made some lovely images with it (https://sperryphoto.com/an-american-mill). More recently when I wanted a mechanical type 35mm camera I did consider getting back into RFs. The cost of lenses though is just a little tough to swallow. I picked up an LX and the 31, 43, & 77mm FA lenses for basically the cost of a single decent Voigtlander lens.

Great photos Mark! First thought was to wonder whether the textile mill could produce selvedge blue denim which seems to be a fetish item these days, probably worth a mint in the right market. Did you use Kodak Ektar 100 and a tripod?

Though I enjoyed them when I had them, I'm in no great rush to get back into Leica sport optics or M-cameras. Today I think M43 is the underappreciated digital standard.

 

[Prest_400]

Sports photography will be via frame extraction from 120 frame/sec 8k or higher resolution drone video, by then, as will most photojournalism.

I think still film will be around for quite a long time, if manufacturers like Ilford, Foma and Adox can keep on going. IIRC a big threat is aging of employees, machinery, their knowhow and specific supplies.
As of stills frame extraction from video, it's interesting I've been reading and hearing about it... I recall an article in photo.net by Phillip Greenspun, easily dating from late 90s or early 2000s talking about that happening in our time. Hard to track it now since they changed the format, but I always found fun to read through things written 1996-2000 in there.

They certainly seem to have access to equipment most of us could only dream of at their age. Perhaps we only see the youngsters who own a couple of double stroke M3s, a Mamiya 7 and Contax point and shoots, whereas lower profile but equally talented young people are shooting cheaper gear.

Our age (25) and more. I'd say these people with the "hyped" cameras are much more visible because they are as well the ones shown in social media. I'm in a photo club where no one has any of the gear listed, at most Hasselblads but I am in their country of origin. Do not subestimate the middle aged demographic that gets into or returns to film.

Though I enjoyed them when I had them, I'm in no great rush to get back into Leica sport optics or M-cameras. Today I think M43 is the underappreciated digital standard.

I've assembled a little m43 kit on a very good budget, all used and some screaming lucky deals. At the end of the day it's about tools, better to have any camera than some Leica that one can't afford. I find an issue with film Leica M's in that they are 35mm and not Medium format...

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Great photos Mark! First thought was to wonder whether the textile mill could produce selvedge blue denim which seems to be a fetish item these days, probably worth a mint in the right market. Did you use Kodak Ektar 100 and a tripod?

Though I enjoyed them when I had them, I'm in no great rush to get back into Leica sport optics or M-cameras. Today I think M43 is the underappreciated digital standard.

Thanks! I actually just showed up with some consumer flims and no tripod. I really didn't know what I was walking into but when we saw the mill I was floored. Such a cool space! Had to make every frame count and luckily it all went well. Had I known I would have used a medium format camera and a tripod for sure!

 

[warden]

Thanks! I actually just showed up with some consumer flims and no tripod. I really didn't know what I was walking into but when we saw the mill I was floored. Such a cool space! Had to make every frame count and luckily it all went well. Had I known I would have used a medium format camera and a tripod for sure!

That was a fantastic location. Good job capturing it!

 

[AndyH]

Thanks! I actually just showed up with some consumer flims and no tripod. I really didn't know what I was walking into but when we saw the mill I was floored. Such a cool space! Had to make every frame count and luckily it all went well. Had I known I would have used a medium format camera and a tripod for sure!

Hi Mark,

I am an amateur historian of old New England mills, in which I became interested many years ago. My family were woolen manufacturers and I have worked on a number of mill conversions into affordable housing over my professional career.

I've seen dozens, maybe hundreds of abandoned mills awaiting new uses, but this mill is in a spectacularly original state and your photos do it justice and then some. I'm so glad I clicked on your link! All your work is terrific, but this one really resonates with me.

Andy

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Thanks! I actually just showed up with some consumer flims and no tripod. I really didn't know what I was walking into but when we saw the mill I was floored. Such a cool space! Had to make every frame count and luckily it all went well. Had I known I would have used a medium format camera and a tripod for sure!

What a fascinating place! Well done. A 21mm lens (on 35mm format) would have been handy for the tight interior spaces.

In keeping with being a bit off topic, my experience in New England mills has been with a Rolleiflex. This the interior of one of the Bates Mill buildings in Lewiston, Maine. Rolleiflex 3.5E, Ilfrord XP2 film. These are amazing places if you can secure permission to go inside with your camera and tripod.

 

[BradS]

I’m enjoying the photos of these old mills and the discussion of their history. Thanks.

 

[Huss]

There was a time before lab owning that I would have LOVED to own an M10. I had an M4 and a 35/2 Biogon and made some lovely images with it (https://sperryphoto.com/an-american-mill). More recently when I wanted a mechanical type 35mm camera I did consider getting back into RFs. The cost of lenses though is just a little tough to swallow. I picked up an LX and the 31, 43, & 77mm FA lenses for basically the cost of a single decent Voigtlander lens.

Great pics, and not just of those in the mill.

Love the pies on the blue stove.

 

[4season]

In my opinion, which may not be popular, Leitz began the transition to a maker of luxury goods rather than professional tools when they brought out their first SLR. and has been headed down that road ever since.
...
Leica became the Montblanc of cameras then, and has been so ever since. ... too expensive for all but the most status conscious and affluent amateurs.

It's fun to think what might have been, but even if E. Leitz had fully appreciated the threat posed by the Japanese SLR (and for all I know, maybe they did) did they have the resources necessary to produce a Nikon F class SLR in the late 1950s, or for that matter, an Asahiflex? And did they ever stand a chance of competing on price with Japanese goods in the USA in an era when the exchange rate between the US$ and Japanese Yen was fixed until the early 1970s?

 

[Ste_S]

Going back to the original question, I can judge the health of film by the price of unfashionable Minolta AF SLRs.

There's still a mountain of these on used websites for very little money. All are perfectly fine cameras and will give more reliable results than older mechanical cameras or premium compacts.
Once these start increasing in price and becoming scarce then there's trouble ahead.

 

[AndyH]

It's fun to think what might have been, but even if E. Leitz had fully appreciated the threat posed by the Japanese SLR (and for all I know, maybe they did) did they have the resources necessary to produce a Nikon F class SLR in the late 1950s, or for that matter, an Asahiflex? And did they ever stand a chance of competing on price with Japanese goods in the USA in an era when the exchange rate between the US$ and Japanese Yen was fixed until the early 1970s?

From what I've read on the subject, Leitz thought that the SLR could never be made rugged enough for pros, especially journalists, working in the field. They stuck to the wartime and immediate postwar notion that Japanese manufacturers were not capable of true precision in mass production techniques. I'm not sure where I found it, but I recall reading at least one article translated from the German that made light of the idea that professionals would ever move to an SLR, let alone a Japanese one. Given some of the problems with the early Zeiss reflexes, it's kind of understandable. One article said that Leitz engineers did not get a look at their first Nikon F for evaluation in the flesh until almost 1963! I don't know whether that's true, but they certainly seem to have taken the competitive threat very casually.

You raise an excellent point on the exchange rate, which I hadn't even thought of. The German and French economies boomed after the original Franco German trade agreement, and both currencies seem to have gone up in relation to both the GBP and USD. Rollei and Zeiss goods were also priced out of US markets while sticking to older designs. However that didn't seem to stop Volkswagen!

Andy

 

[4season]

From what I've read on the subject, Leitz thought that the SLR could never be made rugged enough for pros ... One article said that Leitz engineers did not get a look at their first Nikon F for evaluation in the flesh until almost 1963! I don't know whether that's true, but they certainly seem to have taken the competitive threat very casually.

Perhaps the truth is that Leitz did not wish to cannibalize their own market by introducing an M-alternative: Is it so hard to imagine when we have recent examples of Nikon and Canon hanging onto the F- and EF-mounts way too long? And in a sense, Leica did have an SLR: Visoflex! It must have all seemed very sensible at the time, sensible enough that there were at least three iterations of Visoflex.

Regarding Volkswagon, probably a very different kettle of fish there: Believe they were relatively affordable in the USA and certainly had a reputation for being well made and dependable. My folks bought one in the 1960s as they were not keen on the American offerings of the era. No real Japanese competition at the time, and I think neither Mini or Citroen's 2CV would have charmed them, because they liked little amenities like glass side windows which could be raised or lowered with a crank!

 

[AndyH]

Perhaps the truth is that Leitz did not wish to cannibalize their own market by introducing an M-alternative: Is it so hard to imagine when we have recent examples of Nikon and Canon hanging onto the F- and EF-mounts way too long? And in a sense, Leica did have an SLR: Visoflex! It must have all seemed very sensible at the time, sensible enough that there were at least three iterations of Visoflex.

Regarding Volkswagon, probably a very different kettle of fish there: Believe they were relatively affordable in the USA and certainly had a reputation for being well made and dependable. My folks bought one in the 1960s as they were not keen on the American offerings of the era. No real Japanese competition at the time, and I think neither Mini or Citroen's 2CV would have charmed them, because they liked little amenities like glass side windows which could be raised or lowered with a crank!

Rather than saying that they did not want to cannibalize their own market, I'd suggest that they didn't recognize that they were already in the pot and being boiled by the Japanese, and by the time they did, they were too weak to climb out of the pot.

Their pro market was in field and street photography, and they didn't think an SLR could ever be made with enough precision, durability, and high quality optics to be competitive with them. They made a sufficient variety of doodads and gizmos so that the pros who already owned a Leica COULD use their rangefinders for macro work, copying, or sports photography with long telephotos, but I can't imagine that many pros, at least in the postwar era, ever purchased a Barnack or M series Leica because any of those specialties were their primary work. Anyone who's ever attempted to use a Visoflex with a long lens or in a rapid manner can attest to the clunkiness and slowness of that Rube Goldberg device. I wonder how many they actually sold over the years? Certainly you could use it to shoot an Olympic event, but your timing had better be perfect as you'd only get one or two shots at most. I mean you COULD use an 8x10 monorail for street photography, but an award winning photo would more likely be a case of the "lucky moment" than the decisive one.

Perhaps you're right about VWs, but their primary market strength came from robbing from the sales of larger cars. The Japanese makers' cars at the time really were toy-like and tinny compared to the German product, and few American importers and dealers would have ever thought of selling them as competition for the Beetle. The Japanese camera industry, though, had caught up to and even outpaced its German competition. Pro photographers realized this quite quickly, followed by consumers. The only ones who never did, until it was far too late, were the German manufacturers themselves.

Hubris, and underestimating the strength and quality of the competition, IMHO, doomed Leitz, Zeiss, Rollei, etc. to the fate of buggy whip makers and video stores.​

Andy

PS: I adore my Leicas, Zeisses, and Rolleis!