Several readers asked me about the future of the M9 and S2 cameras since they use Kodak sensors and the company recently filed fot chapter 11 bankruptcy. First, last year Kodak sold their sensor division and Leica can still get their sensors from the new owner Platinum Equity. Second, I believe that Leica will go with a Sony CMOS sensor for the M9 replacement at Photokina and the old Kodak sensor may be needed for just few more months of M9/M9-P production.
For all film users: Kodak's film division is still profitable.
In conclusion, I basically do not see Kodak's bankruptcy filing to impact Leica's business in any way.
Related posts:
13 Comments
Second, I believe that Leica will go with a Sony CMOS sensor for the M9 replacement at Photokina…
IMHO I think you are wrong. Leica will stay with KODAK and the CCD technology. What’s the use of going “mainstream” and use the same sensor as everybody else? Also, they would not be able to use a standard SONY CMOS sensor anyway as it need to be specially built to handle Leica’s ultrawide angle lenses.
I know Leica owners like to exhort their exclusivity, but aren’t we going with this “non-mainstream” rather far? Ricoh is doing great for ultrawides on a APS-C sensor which happens to be from Sony. All they have to do is optimise the lenslet array on the sensor.
It seems a stretch that Sony would supply sensors for Leica – but clearly (seemingly) Kodak isn’t in charge of it’s sensors any longer as stated that Platinum Equity are the ‘owners’. Now-a-days who knows what that means. I would wonder more of replacement sensors for current M’s in the future that have Kodak sensors in them. There is probably a supply as part of production anyway but one only has to look at the DMR to see that replacement parts can be a problem.
If they go more ‘mainstream’ with an ‘affordable’ camera it would seem that they would have to go with somebody other than Platinum.
It is the time to promote film again. It is definitely another story fron digital and i do believe it can live with digital. I will dedicate to tell everybody to use more film, not because Leica, kodak, printing shop, but i still believe film is the real photography!
Agreed, and nearly all of my serious work is in the field and imaged on transparency film.
There is absoltuely room for film and hopefully always will be. I reveiewed some ‘fine art landscape photography’ recently and it was ‘perfectly technical’ in every way, well composed too. But it was harsh to the point of distraction and left nothing for the original scene to ‘speak through to the viewer’, it was digital and they lacked warmth.
Whose work were you looking at? There’s no doubt that there is a certain something to film…I love the look too. With that said, I don’t believe that digital files are completely bereft of ‘soul’ as you film guys love to preach. I’ve seen some pretty amazing prints created from digital files…so it can be done.
At the end of the day, digital is so prevalent that most pros whether they are landscape, sport shooters, photojournalists whatever have all switched to digital…so for better or worse that’s the way it goes.
I love film and it has it’s place…but in a digital age it’s hard to integrate film when you consider the challenges of scanning etc. Of course one can forgo PS altogether can stay purely analog….get it ‘right’ in the field so to speak….but not many are willing to do that anymore.
I tend to agree with the view that film somehow has “soul” compared to digital. I think it is to do with the imperfections inherent in the analog process, whereas digital files are too “perfect”, which we are not used to seeing in the real world. It’s a bit like the difference between watching a movie on a plasma screen vs a backlit LED screen – the latter is just too sharp and clear, it looks fake. But add grain and a little blurriness to digital files, and they begin to take on a semblance of “soul”.
Personally I think the CCD sensor is part of what contributes to the Leica ‘look’ in their M8/M9 cameras. Seriously, take a 50mm Summicron and stick it on a Sony and it just doesn’t look the same…and I’m not just talking about the crop factor or loss of DOF.
I agree, based on my experience in using Leica R lenses on the Olympus E1 (which had a Kodak CCD sensor) and then the later Olympus E cameras (which had CMOS sensors). Something got lost in the translation. I would call it “soul”.
Cute comments here. Leica is rather more affected by its purchase by private equity sharks than it is by the possible disappearance of one of several suppliers of sensor chips.
My wish list for the M10 is small and sometimes not related to sensors at all: better ISO performance (usable 6400 is enough with those fast Leica’s glasses), faster image processing (writing to SD card is paintfully slow on the M9), and no more “sudden death”. If Leica wants to throw more techno into the camera, LED-lit framelines like those on the M9 Titanium would be good enough, but please, only 1 set of framelines per lens.
Sensor design may have reach its limit in terms of quality in low to mid ISO. The differences can hardly be shown without a test bench. The only active area of reasearch is high ISO performance and larger, denser sensor.
I see nothing wrong with using Sony sensors in an M10. CMOS is a step forward from CCD. The newest CMOS sensors even produce better colors and image quality than CCD. CCD was out first, and has been leading the market for a long period, but not any more.
Also Nikon uses Sony sensors for their high-end cameras, like the D3 and D4.
Ofcause they need to be modified to fit the Leica, and the Leica lenses, but I don’t think that it will be a problem for Sony.
But lets wait and see
.
Rumours abound over Fuji and its non-Bayer chip. It is likely that the M10 may have a full frame of this chip. If so, Leica may have one powerful camera. But, these are rumours.