Re: [Leica] Do we care? We do.

[Jeffcoat Photography <jeffcoatphoto@sumter.net>]

I for one do not wish to be stuck in the dark ages as technology marches on.
To think of Leica going under and not caring is so much B.S. Yes there will
and are other fine camera companies out there that will take up the slack,
but look at the new 35-70 2.8 (This is the finest example of the art out
there)(Yes it's an R lens and that is what I and a lot of others shoot) Any
company capable of this has lots more where that came from and I for one
want to see and use it. Sure there are lots of old glass out there and for
different asignments it can be better than new, but lets not throw the baby
out with the bath water.
My 2 cents.
Cheers Wilber GFE

Mike Johnston wrote:

> >>>Here's where I jump off the bandwagon.  I honestly don't care whether
> Leica
> Camera A.G. is in business next year or not.  If they go out of business
>
> tomorrow, there are (and will continue to be) tens of thousands of M2,
> M3,
> M4(-2/-P), M5, M6 bodies on the market or ready for market.  There are
> probably hundreds of thousands of lenses of all vintages and focal
> lengths.
> There are a number of highly skilled, dedicated, independent repair
> people.
> So what if the Leica M becomes the Rolleiflex of 35mm?  The cameras and
> lenses will continue to function, will continue to be repairable, and
> will
> continue to be for sale on the used market for decades.<<<
>
> I can't agree with this. If Leica had gone out of business in 1952, we'd
> all be shooting screwmount? I doubt it. For every one hobbyist still
> shooting screwmount regularly, there are thousands who have migrated
> away from it since 1952. If Leica had gone out of business in 1983, we
> wouldn't have a metered M. If they'd gone out of business in 198?
> (sorry, don't know the date of the first aspherical lens) we wouldn't
> have any of the aspherics.
>
> Incidentally, the Rolleiflex is still made and still able to be
> purchased new.
>
> Any discontinued camera gets less convenient to use as time passes.
> Qualified repair people aren't much good if they can't get needed parts.
> And, usually, there are always features that are improved by advances in
> technology that make older cameras obsolete. If you don't believe this
> is generally true, try shooting Pentax M42 screwmount for a while
> (obsolete by about 1972). They exist in about the condition of your
> postulated defunkt Leica, except they're cheaper. You'll find they're
> not that easy to use--CdS instead of silicon meters; relatively dim
> screens; inferior WA lenses (for the most part) because retrofocus lens
> design hadn't come as far by 1972 as it has since then; very limited
> motor drive capability; almost non-existent flash capability by today's
> standards; repair parts have to be cannibalized off parts cameras; and
> there's no chance of new accessories or new models. Professionals used
> these cameras in the 1960s. Now, very few people, even amateurs, use
> them regularly.
>
> You'd be okay for a while if Leica went belly-up, but not forever, and
> maybe not even as long as you think--something new would come down the
> pike that you feel you just have to have, something that a healthy Leica
> AG would have been able to adopt in order to keep its customers. Time
> doesn't stand still, even for the "perfect" (?) Leica M6 (formerly
> "perfect" M4, formerly "perfect" M2, formerly "perfect" M3, etc.). Even
> assuming you personally WOULD stick with Leica for 30 years after its
> demise, most people wouldn't. History is our guide on this point and the
> evidence is unambiguous.
>
> --Mike
>
> P.S. Please don't cite exceptions to me. I know I'm going to hear from
> people saying, "I've been using my Barnack camera since before they
> mucked it up with that darned rangefinder contraption on top, sonny boy,
> and I've gotten great shots for years," etc. The exceptions don't
> disprove the generalities.