ON THE M8: SHOCK OF THE NEW & DEJA VU

[rolly]

Around the same time Leica introduced the M3 Parker Pen company brought out the Parker Jotter, a ballpoint pen that actually worked. Although it revolutionized the pen business, the Jotter was the culmination of a two decades old race to replace fountain pens with a “better” kind of writing “technology,” that is, dry ink, a “delivery system” that could be retracted, yet which would write in permanent ink. Ironically, the development of a “new” medium like ballpoint ink ruined more than a few companies whose expertise was laregly in the older, classical technology of wet ink– Wahl Eversharp, which made some of the most wonderful fountain pens ever, in trying to switch from wet to dry ink pretty much killed itself with ballpoints that didn’t work and had to be taken back under warranties. On the other hand, Parker pulled it off by not being the first company to bring a ballpoint to market– instead they brought out a killer product– the Jotter in 1954 and the T-ball Jotter in 1957– and for a long time the company survived. But in the end, there was just too much change– too many disposable pens, a shrinking market, AT Cross’s classier pen, and market forces and mergers with Waterman.

The history of the fountain pen rather parallels the history of film and the application of specialized gear to a mass market of consumers. Ironically, both fountain pens and film cameras had a common manufacturing ingredient– celluloid, the first man-made plastic, invented by the Hyatt brothers of Albany in 1871. Celluloid was going to be a revolutionary product, replacing ivory (save the elephants goes back that far) in billiard balls and piano keys. But billiards as a fad waned, and until Kodak came along, celluloid was a miracle innovation with few applications. Sure, there were some kinks to iron out– that pesky combustibility for instance, in the first consumer films, but if an idea is a marketable one, you can adapt as need be. Kodak improved on celluloid and created safety film. Around the time Leica began to make cameras the fountain pen industry moved from hard rubber pens to plastic– a move that was not driven by improvements in the fountain pen itself, but by a need to find new ways to make the fountain pen look “new.” In the 1920's, in the pen business, “new” began to look like celluloid.

For the twenty years of its use, celluloid made some beautiful pens, pens with glorious plastic patterns you won’t find today. Coincidentally, there began a great consolidation of the myriad small and large pen makers into a few mega-pen makers: Waterman, Parker, Wahl, Sheaffer. Interesting companies like Conklin and Le Boeuf went under. And a few interesting improvements in pen filling technology went on, along with tweakings of the nib– Parker came up with its Vacumatic, Wahl created an adjustable nib.

But, by the end of WW2, the public was tired of wet ink pens, beautiful and as innovative as they might have been. Although there were tens and tens and tens of millions of mass produced fountain pens in service by 1950, in less than a decade the ballpoint had eroded fountain pen sales by 50%, and by 1990, less than 5% of pens sold were fountain pens.

At the turn of the century there were over 150 pen makers in the NYC area alone– there was that level of excitement over this new writing technology that LE Waterman revolutionized in 1884 with the grooved pen section. In 1894, George Parker patented the Lucky Curve Feed. In ‘99, he patented a jointless pen, in 1904 the lever filler-pen. Conklin, Sheaffer, Le Boeuf– along with many now forgotten designers, all added to the perfection of an idea that seemed like it would never run out of ink.

 

[ch1]

While I enjoyed the historical discussion (B.A. in History from SUNY/Buffalo, 1973) I don't really see the analogy. The M8 is Leica's entry into an established digital imaging industry. It is not innovative, it does not represent a technological breakthrough. It will be "small 's'" successful but will not register much more than a "blip" in the total digital marketplace.

I think is great that Leica is making the M8 and I am sure that many here will be among its fans. But I doubt I'll get one - just too many $'s for something that will obsolete fairly quickly.

 

[jaapv]

But a lot less quickly than other digital camera's, George, so what are you going to do? You can't drive a horse and buggy because cars lose 90 % of their value in five years (unless you are Amish of course)

 

[Avotius]

I hope you are not implying that companies that revolutionized digital (Canon, Sony, Kodak) are gona beat smaller companies that failed to jump on the wagon into the ground (Leica, etc)

Although it seems to be how things are going. Contax, Mamiya, Bronica, Pentax....all shadows of what they used to be.

Even though I would love to see Leica survive more then any other company, I would wet my pants if Canon came out with a sub 1000 dollar digital rangefinder.

 

[bmattock]

Even though I would love to see Leica survive more then any other company, I would wet my pants if Canon came out with a sub 1000 dollar digital rangefinder.

I would wet someone else's pants if that happened. No one wants to see that.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ch1]

But a lot less quickly than other digital camera's, George, so what are you going to do? You can't drive a horse and buggy because cars lose 90 % of their value in five years (unless you are Amish of course)

I would agree that the M8 may depreciate in value more slowly than other digitals - not so much because it is a Leica - but because it may be the only digi RF for a long time (leaving Epson aside since they don't seem committed to the format for the long-term).

My only real point was with the analogy. The Parker ballpoint pen revolutionized writing and all but destroyed the prior technology (fountain pens). In photography the revolution happened a while ago - Leica is not leading the charge, simply responding to the change that has already occurred.

 

[fgianni]

But a lot less quickly than other digital camera's, George, so what are you going to do? You can't drive a horse and buggy because cars lose 90 % of their value in five years (unless you are Amish of course)

An RD-1 bought for $3000 in 2004 is worth about $2000 now
A Canon 10D bought for $1500 in 2004 is worth about $500 now.

 

[jaapv]

I hear you George, but I do write exclusively with a fountain pen - my assistants claim they cannot read my writing when I use a ballpoint. So what does that make me- a dinosaur?

 

[ch1]

I hear you George, but I do write exclusively with a fountain pen - my assistants claim they cannot read my writing when I use a ballpoint. So what does that make me- a dinosaur?

When I was a kid we had to use fountain pens (actually they were cartridge pens - the ink was in a disposable plastic tube you put in the pen) in school. I don't know why - I went to Catholic school and I guess they thought it was "more proper"?

Anyway, I ruined a bunch of shirts (white of course) during that time from leaky pens. I don't know if it was me or my parents who was pleased more when in high school they finally "relented" and let us use ball points!

I think that writing with a fountain pen is cool (and doesn't make you a dinosaur) but I hand write so little nowadays (mainly just signatures) that I personally have no interest in them.

Then again - I shoot my film cameras more than I do my digitals.

 

[rxmd]

> In photography the revolution happened a while ago - Leica is not leading the charge,
> simply responding to the change that has already occurred.

It's good that mass market digital photography wasn't their idea. Pioneers often get kicked out of the markets they helped to create. Did you see any Apple or professional Kodak digital cameras recently?

Also, the only time when Leica was really innovative was in the 1920s and 30s. All the M3 did was to refine an established type of camera by incorporating a couple of ideas that were more or less new and popular at the time (others had the same ideas, look e.g. at the Casca II) and presenting them with high build quality and the market power of a then large camera maker. The area where camera innovation largely happened in the 50s, SLRs, was happily ignored by Leica, who stuck to their traditional idea of a camera with some obstinacy. Innovation came back with the M5, but at that time Leica already had a userbase that was at best skeptical.

 

[Trius]

I would agree that the M8 may depreciate in value more slowly than other digitals - not so much because it is a Leica - but because it may be the only digi RF for a long time (leaving Epson aside since they don't seem committed to the format for the long-term).

My only real point was with the analogy. The Parker ballpoint pen revolutionized writing and all but destroyed the prior technology (fountain pens). In photography the revolution happened a while ago - Leica is not leading the charge, simply responding to the change that has already occurred.

I'm guessing that once Cosina's (presumed) non-compete with Epson expires, they'll be in the hunt. That will be a good thing for Leica.

 

[ch1]

An RD-1 bought for $3000 in 2004 is worth about $2000 now
A Canon 10D bought for $1500 in 2004 is worth about $500 now.

No surprise. Canon continues to innovate its product line. Epson does not. Constant product line updates will hasten value depreciation.

 

[JohnL]

An RD-1 bought for $3000 in 2004 is worth about $2000 now
A Canon 10D bought for $1500 in 2004 is worth about $500 now.

At least part of the reason for that is that the successor to the 10D, the 20D, can now be bought for about $1000 and the successor to that, the 30D, is available new for about $1400. If you want a DRF, you still have only one choice. It's more a question of market value - supply and demand - not really intrinsic value (whatever that may be). The 10D and the RD1 have about equal IQ ability. The 20D and 30D are better. All these DSLRs appear to be more reliable than RD1's, based on what I've read on the net. I don;t have an RD1 myself. Further, it seems possible the market price of the RD1 may be being supported by rumours that the model is going out of production, so it may become a niche collector's item. That wouldn't happen to 10Ds until about 99% of those ever built go into landfill, which is likely to be a while, because most of them are still fully functional cameras, maybe the best bang-for-the-buck there is for entry into the DSLR world.

 

[Socke]

An RD-1 bought for $3000 in 2004 is worth about $2000 now
A Canon 10D bought for $1500 in 2004 is worth about $500 now.

A Rebel XT has most of the features of a 10d and then some for less than 800 Euro including a kit lens.
A 30d which is a real improvement over the 10d in every aspect can be had for 1150 Euro.

Why should one buy a 10d which may or may not have some 50,000 clicks on the shutter for more than 500?

 

[hth]

So in both cases the depreciation is $1000. Digital photography is not without its virtues, but it is expensive.

My Minolta Scan Multi Pro was not cheap, nor was the Epson 2100 printer or the now almost 3 year old top of the line Mac that drives it. I have lost my big share of money in depreciation for these items, not that I plan to sell any of them, they are being used almost daily. (Well not the printer, it wants new and this time working MIS inkjet cartridges).

/Håkan

An RD-1 bought for $3000 in 2004 is worth about $2000 now
A Canon 10D bought for $1500 in 2004 is worth about $500 now.

 

[jaapv]

I wouldn't buy any of them Volker, considering that I have my 10D which is good enough for me - for the time being and the way I use it. I cannot say the 30D is THAT much of an improvement - provided one shoots RAW. Yes- more shots in the burst and better AF - but those are features I can live without. Now when the Leica-Panasonic 2/3 with Leica telezoom hits the market next year that might be another story.

 

[MP/CLE]

Uh, Bill... is that a gaffer-tape muzzle in your avatar? I hope its removable... I enjoy your comments around here.

 

[humanized_form]

i think Leica simply being Leica and doing what they have always done and not changing design or function, except where absloutely necessary, willl actually be something very new for digital photography.

 

[LCT]

i think Leica simply being Leica and doing what they have always done and not changing design or function, except where absloutely necessary, willl actually be something very new for digital photography.

Difficult to be new after the R-D1 but the M8 will be better than the latter hopefully.
Not quite sure though for those who like shooting both eyes open, as the R-D1 will probably stay the only digital rangefinder with a 1:1 finder, the only digital M3 sort of.
Also the R-D1 could well stay the only digital rangefinder the LCD of which can be forgotten completely.
Best,
LCT

 

[Mark Norton]

I had hoped there would be a variable magnification viewfinder but it seems unlikely.

As regards LCD, there's been very little speculation on how Leica will present the information the photographer needs to know when shooting - battery state, memory left, white balance, quality, ISO, EV +/-, Frame Selection - the Epson does it in an innovative way with the dials for the first 4 and the shutter speed dial for the next two.

I expect there will be a secondary LCD panel somewhere...