2008
What is new?
22/12/08 20:09 Filed in: Personal
Film news.
Film is old-fashioned, it is obsolete, a niche in a niche in a niche, you are stupid to use film and so on. All these remarks are true, but I still use film. It makes sense, it is fun and you get excellent quality without much photoshopping. Did you read that several opinion-makers now plead to stop using Photoshop in the photographic workflow?
I got information from Schain company that they will introduce a new developer that will increase the useful speed of microfilms. If true, that would be good news. Then we will be able to exploit the inherent image quality of our beautiful Leica lenses with more acceptable shutter speeds. Let us wait!
Camera news
Sales of film may be improving a bit, but sales of film loading cameras is down to zero. Brace for impact as Captain Janeway would say as they encounter the Borg once again. We film users are forced to acknowledge the inevitable. Film will not be become extinct as the Dinosaurs in the past, but it will become a medium with a tag of exclusiveness, like good wine or whiskey: you need money and conviction to be able to appreciate the stuff.
Already seen the new Woody Allen film?A Leica M camera plays a prominent role.
Nikon and Canon: more cooperation than competition!
In a recent article in the German magazine “ Wirtschaftswoche” ( it is nice to read and understand several languages), you will find an most revealing article about the Nikon and Canon companies.
The writers claim that N and C together dominate the market for d-slr cameras (hardly a new fact), but they also state that N and C share top technologies to stay competitive as a group and to fend off other players like Olympus, Sony or Pentax to become major players in the field. A monopoly would be bad, so both companies are in competition, but is a most friendly one. It is noted that the chairmen of both companies are friends. Canon was the best choice for a longer period, but made a big mistake with the 1D Mark III, and Nikon could score with the D3. And forge ahead with the D3X. But Canon managers are smiling: the new Canon top camera will redress this disadvantage and many Nikon professional users will switch to Canon and many aficionados will follow suit. It then is best to stick with a company and wait one product cycle before deciding to switch. C and N then will not kill each other with a price competition. They will defend their market share together and keep the others in the margin.
The new D90 and 5D mark II introduce a new paradigm in photography (did I not tell you so?) by blending HD movie capabilities with high quality still photography. Classical photography is subtly disappearing just like the smile of the Cheshire cat.
The C and N managers will carefully analyze the end-of-year sales to tighten the strategy for the next PMA: not killing each other but the rest of the bunch. Sam Packinpah already knew it!
|
Parameter shift
05/12/08 16:17 Filed in: Products
The introduction of the Nikon D3X with 24+ Mp sensor indicates the emergence of a new era in sensor based photography. Sony and Canon already have 35mm sized capture elements with 20+ Million pixels and now Nikon follows. It is evident that these three companies want to become the masters of the photographic universe. Canon’s 50D with 15 Mp points the way to a 30+ Mp sensor in the next generation Canon camera-types. Whether there s a real need for these levels of resolution might be a debatable topic, but fact is that the band-wagon-effect will force others to compete to stay in the market.
With these new capture devices we enter the classical domain of high definition photography. In the era of film based photography, we had three levels of film speeds: high speed (ISO 400 and above) for general photography, medium speed (ISO 64 to ISO125) for art photography and high quality imagery and low speed (ISO 15 to ISO 25) for high resolution photography when big enlargements and the reproduction of extremely fine detail was required.
The HD type of photography never became very popular, not only because of the slow speed, but primarily because of the very high demands on the equipment and expertise of the photographer. When you need to record details at the 100 lp/mm level, a very stable tripod, outstandingly good optics, low level tolerance manufactured camera bodies, accurate focusing among others are mandatory.
The new generation of high definition digital cameras offer a much higher speed combined with high resolution. Therefore one of the main problems of the past has been solved. But all others are still factors that influence image quality. You need a sturdy tripod in most cases. A high sensor speed and vibration reduction technology may help hand held shooting, but is not always the optimum solution. The two big problems that cannot be overlooked are optical quality and the accuracy of auto focus. Especially the AF technology lags behind the demands of high definition photography, but lens performance is equally important as a parameter.
Manufacturing tolerances may become a major factor, as the imaging chain as all components in the camera must be positioned at the exact places. LIve View technology could help, as you focus on the sensor surface in this case. But the camera displays are too rough to note small deviations for the true focus position.
The new Nikon has a pixel size of 5.5 micron. That allows for a resolution of 91 linepairs/mm, which is very high (still below the low speed films that operate in the 100-200 lp/mm class), but more than enough for almost every photographic assignment. There are only a few lenses in the Nikon stable that can record details at this level with good contrast and then only at smaller apertures. These lenses can be found in the best long telelens section, but these lenses can be used only on tripod to exploit the inherent capabilities.
One might argue that the in-camera processing software and the post-processing programs can extract every possible detail from the capture file, but when interpolation becomes a lucky guess, the quality of definition will deteriorate.
This state of affairs has an important impact on the method of testing and the interpretation of the results.It is common knowledge, I assume, that all testing now is executed with a camera-lens combination, a range of test charts and subsequent software development of the image file. The quality of the test charts and the quality of the development programs are very important parameters for the final evaluation of the system performance. As far as I know, these input-output parameters have never been subjected to stringent comparative analyses and given the wide range of manipulations that is possible, the single results are not very reliable when compared to each other. This wide latitude in methodical approach might be responsible for the widely diverging opinions and test results on and off the web of the same camera-lens system.
The German magazine Color Photo is obsessively occupied with numerical analysis and comparison of camera-lens pairs. While the general usability of the test results is highly debatable, they do work in a thorough teutonic fashion, which implies that the results can be compared. The major finding of several years of testing is the conclusion that any camera-lens combination generates different results: camera A and lens A are different form camera B and lens A and camera A with lens B. The same lens performs very good on one camera body but not on another and the same body gets good results with some lens but not with another lens. The conclusions then are valid only for this particular lens-camera combo.
On the other hand we see that minor numerical differences are promoted as significant differences in photographic quality, which is not true.
Now with the new generation of sensors we have to add yet another factor of unreliability to the imaging chain: the AF factor. We know from careful testing that AF is not accurate and reliable for high definition photography. But all testing assumes that AF will produce accurate results.
The conclusion then is that with this new HR dSLR (high resolution camera), the testing is dependent on the assumption that AF is good enough and that the lens is good enough. Both assumptions are not valid unless proven by independent testing, which is not possible as the variation in manufacturing tolerances will always put a spoke in the tester’s wheel.
It is illuminating that the obsession with equipment testing is confined to the domain of 35mm photography (film and solid state). In the past the medium format aficionados never were impressed with numerical testing as the surplus of image quality was so big that fine tuning and ultimate testing was no issue. The same now happens with the digital backs, where you will not see the amount and extent of testing that is normal in 35mm photography.
Might this kind of reasoning sit behind Leica’s decision to create a new professional format with the S2? Leica claims that they will implement an AF system with high accuracy.
With these new capture devices we enter the classical domain of high definition photography. In the era of film based photography, we had three levels of film speeds: high speed (ISO 400 and above) for general photography, medium speed (ISO 64 to ISO125) for art photography and high quality imagery and low speed (ISO 15 to ISO 25) for high resolution photography when big enlargements and the reproduction of extremely fine detail was required.
The HD type of photography never became very popular, not only because of the slow speed, but primarily because of the very high demands on the equipment and expertise of the photographer. When you need to record details at the 100 lp/mm level, a very stable tripod, outstandingly good optics, low level tolerance manufactured camera bodies, accurate focusing among others are mandatory.
The new generation of high definition digital cameras offer a much higher speed combined with high resolution. Therefore one of the main problems of the past has been solved. But all others are still factors that influence image quality. You need a sturdy tripod in most cases. A high sensor speed and vibration reduction technology may help hand held shooting, but is not always the optimum solution. The two big problems that cannot be overlooked are optical quality and the accuracy of auto focus. Especially the AF technology lags behind the demands of high definition photography, but lens performance is equally important as a parameter.
Manufacturing tolerances may become a major factor, as the imaging chain as all components in the camera must be positioned at the exact places. LIve View technology could help, as you focus on the sensor surface in this case. But the camera displays are too rough to note small deviations for the true focus position.
The new Nikon has a pixel size of 5.5 micron. That allows for a resolution of 91 linepairs/mm, which is very high (still below the low speed films that operate in the 100-200 lp/mm class), but more than enough for almost every photographic assignment. There are only a few lenses in the Nikon stable that can record details at this level with good contrast and then only at smaller apertures. These lenses can be found in the best long telelens section, but these lenses can be used only on tripod to exploit the inherent capabilities.
One might argue that the in-camera processing software and the post-processing programs can extract every possible detail from the capture file, but when interpolation becomes a lucky guess, the quality of definition will deteriorate.
This state of affairs has an important impact on the method of testing and the interpretation of the results.It is common knowledge, I assume, that all testing now is executed with a camera-lens combination, a range of test charts and subsequent software development of the image file. The quality of the test charts and the quality of the development programs are very important parameters for the final evaluation of the system performance. As far as I know, these input-output parameters have never been subjected to stringent comparative analyses and given the wide range of manipulations that is possible, the single results are not very reliable when compared to each other. This wide latitude in methodical approach might be responsible for the widely diverging opinions and test results on and off the web of the same camera-lens system.
The German magazine Color Photo is obsessively occupied with numerical analysis and comparison of camera-lens pairs. While the general usability of the test results is highly debatable, they do work in a thorough teutonic fashion, which implies that the results can be compared. The major finding of several years of testing is the conclusion that any camera-lens combination generates different results: camera A and lens A are different form camera B and lens A and camera A with lens B. The same lens performs very good on one camera body but not on another and the same body gets good results with some lens but not with another lens. The conclusions then are valid only for this particular lens-camera combo.
On the other hand we see that minor numerical differences are promoted as significant differences in photographic quality, which is not true.
Now with the new generation of sensors we have to add yet another factor of unreliability to the imaging chain: the AF factor. We know from careful testing that AF is not accurate and reliable for high definition photography. But all testing assumes that AF will produce accurate results.
The conclusion then is that with this new HR dSLR (high resolution camera), the testing is dependent on the assumption that AF is good enough and that the lens is good enough. Both assumptions are not valid unless proven by independent testing, which is not possible as the variation in manufacturing tolerances will always put a spoke in the tester’s wheel.
It is illuminating that the obsession with equipment testing is confined to the domain of 35mm photography (film and solid state). In the past the medium format aficionados never were impressed with numerical testing as the surplus of image quality was so big that fine tuning and ultimate testing was no issue. The same now happens with the digital backs, where you will not see the amount and extent of testing that is normal in 35mm photography.
Might this kind of reasoning sit behind Leica’s decision to create a new professional format with the S2? Leica claims that they will implement an AF system with high accuracy.
Photographic greed
24/11/08 22:43 Filed in: Personal
The world economy is now officially in a state of recession. Some economists think this is a good event to reduce and at the same time reflect on hyper-consumerism. We have witnessed the magnitude and intensity of this type of consumerism in the speed and introduction of new products in the photographic world. It is futile to wish a return to the times when major changes in a camera product line occurred once in a decade. But the fast pace of product innovations and the short life cycle of even great camera models does force one to think and ask whether photographers really need all these new features. Of course magazine editors and writers of camera and software manuals are very happy with the current state of affairs: every month a host of new products can be reviewed and compared and every six months a new manual can be recycled and upgraded to the new product upgrade.
The quality of reporting and reviewing is at best leveling off and at worst simply deteriorating.
The current financial crisis is partly caused by that unpleasant human characteristic known as greed: always wanting more money and higher mortgages and more cars and more credit to buy still more products. We may feel upset by the stark exposure of the darker aspects of this trait. But to be honest, greed is not an unusual occurrence, restricted to bankers and wall-street-traders. We can see this characteristic in operation everywhere in the photographic world: when we ask for more pixels, more features, more gadgets, more lenses, more zoom range, we are all exhibiting this same familiar trait.
One nice byproduct of the current crisis is an urgency of reduced spending: once upon a time we can resist the drive to buy the newest product and skip a cycle. Why buy the newest D90 or 50D? Wait for the next one or even the next-next one. Let us focus on what we have and settle for an exploration and enjoyment of what we have. A dip in the current consumption level is not bad at all. And it will make us all a bit green-savvy: use less resources of the earth and reduce the waste belt of electronic and plastic material.
There are persons who boast that they take 2500 images in one weekend and assume that this numerical fact elevates them to the status of expert of professional, but they only spend flash cards and energy. With motor driven high speed cameras it is not the issue of taking more pictures, but to restrict yourself to take the right pictures.
As soon as a manufacturer announces a new camera with x-pixels and x-features, the traditional response of all magazines, weblogs and websites is identical: this one is better than the predecessor with x-1 pixels and x-1 features, but we need x+1 pixels and x+1 features. The Leica M8 and M8.2 are hopelessly lost when compared with current full-featured (dslr)-cameras. Even Olympus feels the need to cross the 10 Mp line with the E-30 (compared to the E-3). The E-30 is equipped with a large amount of useless features for purist photography, but the list of features is state of affairs and it does not even offer high quality movie capture (!).
Do we really need a camera with camcorder options in HD quality, scores of format sizes to choose from, picture quality that equals large format AgX photography and can operate at 10 fps to stop motion, hands full of flash options, exposure modes to numerous to sum up and so on.
The basic fact is that the Leica M8(.2) is the antipode to greed in photography and is green: no useless ‘ improvements’ to force buyers to buy the newest model (OK; The snapshot option is in the twilight zone) and you can upgrade the current model with most new features.
The ultimate as a low profile high quality anti-obsoletism product is of course the film-loading Leica MP/M7. This one will last and service you for half a century with the best performance imagery you can imagine when loaded with current state of the art emulsions.
In the past (let us for a moment allow ourselves to be nostalgic) one had a 100ISO film and knew what to do with it and where the limits were: you were forced to exploits the limits, because there was no other option, other than buy a Hasselblad or insert a microfilm emulsion. Now we want it all in one product and as soon as a new product is announced promising to offer all features, we are inclined to buy this one.
Maybe we should be content with what we have and do the most obvious thing: start making pictures that are meaningful and reflect on what we are in this world.
Do we need tens of exposure options? A hand held exposure metering or intelligent use of the TTL meter is all we need.
Do we need all these flash and fill-in options? With some keen insight in basic exposure we can handle all situations.
Do we need all the capture sizes? We only need one size and crop as needed.
Do we need all filters and color spaces and compression ratios? Why not go for the best quality?
Replace greed and herd reflexes/instincts with modesty and professionalism and we may be on the right track.
The quality of reporting and reviewing is at best leveling off and at worst simply deteriorating.
The current financial crisis is partly caused by that unpleasant human characteristic known as greed: always wanting more money and higher mortgages and more cars and more credit to buy still more products. We may feel upset by the stark exposure of the darker aspects of this trait. But to be honest, greed is not an unusual occurrence, restricted to bankers and wall-street-traders. We can see this characteristic in operation everywhere in the photographic world: when we ask for more pixels, more features, more gadgets, more lenses, more zoom range, we are all exhibiting this same familiar trait.
One nice byproduct of the current crisis is an urgency of reduced spending: once upon a time we can resist the drive to buy the newest product and skip a cycle. Why buy the newest D90 or 50D? Wait for the next one or even the next-next one. Let us focus on what we have and settle for an exploration and enjoyment of what we have. A dip in the current consumption level is not bad at all. And it will make us all a bit green-savvy: use less resources of the earth and reduce the waste belt of electronic and plastic material.
There are persons who boast that they take 2500 images in one weekend and assume that this numerical fact elevates them to the status of expert of professional, but they only spend flash cards and energy. With motor driven high speed cameras it is not the issue of taking more pictures, but to restrict yourself to take the right pictures.
As soon as a manufacturer announces a new camera with x-pixels and x-features, the traditional response of all magazines, weblogs and websites is identical: this one is better than the predecessor with x-1 pixels and x-1 features, but we need x+1 pixels and x+1 features. The Leica M8 and M8.2 are hopelessly lost when compared with current full-featured (dslr)-cameras. Even Olympus feels the need to cross the 10 Mp line with the E-30 (compared to the E-3). The E-30 is equipped with a large amount of useless features for purist photography, but the list of features is state of affairs and it does not even offer high quality movie capture (!).
Do we really need a camera with camcorder options in HD quality, scores of format sizes to choose from, picture quality that equals large format AgX photography and can operate at 10 fps to stop motion, hands full of flash options, exposure modes to numerous to sum up and so on.
The basic fact is that the Leica M8(.2) is the antipode to greed in photography and is green: no useless ‘ improvements’ to force buyers to buy the newest model (OK; The snapshot option is in the twilight zone) and you can upgrade the current model with most new features.
The ultimate as a low profile high quality anti-obsoletism product is of course the film-loading Leica MP/M7. This one will last and service you for half a century with the best performance imagery you can imagine when loaded with current state of the art emulsions.
In the past (let us for a moment allow ourselves to be nostalgic) one had a 100ISO film and knew what to do with it and where the limits were: you were forced to exploits the limits, because there was no other option, other than buy a Hasselblad or insert a microfilm emulsion. Now we want it all in one product and as soon as a new product is announced promising to offer all features, we are inclined to buy this one.
Maybe we should be content with what we have and do the most obvious thing: start making pictures that are meaningful and reflect on what we are in this world.
Do we need tens of exposure options? A hand held exposure metering or intelligent use of the TTL meter is all we need.
Do we need all these flash and fill-in options? With some keen insight in basic exposure we can handle all situations.
Do we need all the capture sizes? We only need one size and crop as needed.
Do we need all filters and color spaces and compression ratios? Why not go for the best quality?
Replace greed and herd reflexes/instincts with modesty and professionalism and we may be on the right track.
Bigger is better, is it not?
05/11/08 15:13 Filed in: Personal
First an update.
My report concerning the RLS developer has generated an unexpected high level of responses. It seems that AgX technology is still en vogue by cognoscenti. The original formula (CG-512) is still available and can be ordered by
->Fototechnik Suvatlar, Simrockstrasse 178a, 22589 Hamburg. (Phone 00 49 -40 - 39 57 09)
This company is the successor of the original Udo Raffay enterprise and they sell the original developer.
->Moersch Photochemie also sells this product.
A second update:
In my first impression of the new Leica M lenses I wrote that “The 0.95/50 has the same level of energy transport as a 1.4/21 (twice the field of view and half the aperture).”
This is not correct. In reality the level of energy transported through the Nx 0.95 is more than twice the level of the energy transported by the Sx 21. The correct calculation needs to incorporate the angle of view in the entrance pupil field.If you do this then the level of energy is twice as high in the Nx.
My conclusion that the Sx21 is at least as complicated to design as the Nx is still OK: wide angle lenses and especially high speed wide angle lenses have to cope with a very heavy amount of curvature of field, not the easiest aberration to control.
Big is not always pleasant!
My review of the D3 and M8 drew much attention and most comments focussed on the size and heaviness of the D3 (and comparable cameras like the Canon 1 D series and Sony A900) and the barrage of unnecessary features. If you handle the D3 and the original F, you will immediately appreciate this view that the size and complexity of current cameras is over the top. Interface designers are very smart in hiding this complexity from normal use, but it still lurks behind every action you want to do with these cameras.The “R10-in-the-pipeline” has a good chance of attracting new customers and revive the interest of existing customers if the twin goals of a compact design with a slender portfolio of basic features can be combined with state of the art lenses and exposure and AF qualities with superior ease of handling. Most predictions assume that the R10 will have an updated R8/R9 shape, but I would say that this design has been evolved into the S2 and it would be smart for the Leica company to design the announced R10 not around the R8 chassis, but based upon the classical R7 chassis. The R6.2 and R7 belong to the best SLR models from Leica and have the same profile as the current MP and M7. If you look for really classical models in the R-line, the R3 might also qualify, but this camera, however good in its basic design, was too much Minolta and too less Leica. It would make sense to take a look into the Leica past to have a clue of what might shape the future.
More number games
16/10/08 18:37 Filed in: Personal
Image processing by humans
A most intriguing number appeared recently in the magazine Wired. The human eye/brain system processes in one year the incredible number of 120 million images. The precise base for this calculation is not known, but I assume it refers to the number of different views that an average human can handle in a day’s time span. On the credible assumption that a very good photographer can generate a handful of really memorable pictures in one year one could argue as follows. Even a very enthusiastic photographer needs sleep and is not always active on every day. Let us say that ten hours a day at 6 days a week is reasonable. Then we have 52 weeks times six days times ten hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds equals eleven million two hundred thirty-two thousand (11232000) seconds. My HP50g tells me this. Then we are processing ten images every second and have to select when to press the shutter. How big is the chance that we do select the right moment? This is 10 divided by 120 million or one in twelve million. In other words: for every twelve million images we process, we must decide which one of these twelve millions is worth recording!
The dreaded R-word.
Reading The Economist is always good for thinking as the articles are often intellectually challenging and, how awful!, very often correct. It seems that the world economy needs between five and ten years to recover from the financial crisis. Read for this word simply recession. The only solution to get out of this mess is saving and not spending for many years. This is bad news for the high-end and expensive cameras that have been launched at Photokina 2008. Amateur photographers will hold back their money and money earning users of these cameras (aka professional photographers) will have to adjust their investments to the expected volume of orders, which will be less than it was in recent years.
The new Leica S2 has been targeted by various sources at a price level between 10.000 Euro and 25.000 Euro, less lens. If it is true what most cognoscenti claim to know that a new M and a new R will surface from the Solms engineering department in 2009/2010, then these cameras with undoubtedly a hefty price tag will hit the market when the recession is at its worst. Well I am saving already. Do not want to miss the boat.
Number games
30/09/08 10:04 Filed in: Personal
The new Leica S2 aims to introduce a new Pro format, perhaps trying to emulate the role of the original Barnack format. For almost a century Leica has been focused on exploring that format and all construction- and lens design has been directed to the goal of optimizing the advantages of that format.
The transfer of that vast amount of knowledge and experience into the digital domain has not been easy. Witness the DMR Module and the M8 or for that matter the original S1. Now Leica seems to be confident to play a prominent role in the market and while not yet committing themselves to the digitization of the Barnack format, they have now two formats close to the 24x36 negative size. The M8 is 18x27mm and the S2 is 30x45mm. The first is -1.33x and the second is +1.25x. Diagonals for the three formats are: 32.45; 43.27 and 54.08mm. The announced 70mm lens as the standard lens is thus a slight telelens.
Why is Leica operating in this bandwidth of +/- 1.33 range? You might call it the comfort zone of the engineers and designers. This ratio of reduction and enlargement is within the normal range of construction parameters. Within this zone Leica can still tap the vast resources of knowledge without becoming too experimental. For the new lenses designed for the S2, Leica could use R-lens constructions. And the M8 body is closely modelled on the original filmloading M-body. The new S2 is a look alike of the R9 and only on closer inspection and a size comparison, you note the differences.
There is considerable attention for the new Noctilux 0.95/50mm lens and this is quite understandable. The difference between f/1 and f/0.95 is however less impressive than awe for that magical number would presume. The area of the lens diameter is 2123 square mm versus 2349 square mm and amounts to 10% difference. That is substantial. But one must also accept that any lens aperture may have a tolerance range of 5%. Officially an f/1 design may be in the range of 0.95 to 1.05. Accepting the fact that Leica uses a more narrow interpretation of the tolerance band, it is most plausible that 3% would be allowed. Then we may have the situation that the old Noctilux f/1 at one end of the tolerance range would have the same effective aperture as the new Noctilux f/0.95 at the other end of the range. Both could end up being effectively 0.98!
A 10% larger diameter may be an additional hurdle for the optical designer, but sensitometry tells you that 10% is a mere 1/10 of a stop or EV. That is hardly noticeable!
I am already using the new Elmar-M 3.8/24mm asph and enjoy this lens immensely. The aperture of f/3.8 is intriguing, because the 5% margin of tolerance from an f/4 aperture is from 3.8 to 4.2. On the lens there are click stops for 3.8 and 4! And you see indeed the aperture blades move when changing the aperture ring between these two numbers. This fact should imply that Leica has indeed broken the classical tolerance range of 5% to a much smaller value. Otherwise a f/3.8 aperture next to a f/4 would not make sense.
Leica is slowly moving away from the classical range 1-1.4-2-2.8-4 and now has 0.95-1.4-2.5-3.4-3.8. This fits into the new vision of Mr Lee (yes he did have a vision) to give Leica a new cachet by adopting subtle changes to make the marque more recognizable and different form the rest.
The transfer of that vast amount of knowledge and experience into the digital domain has not been easy. Witness the DMR Module and the M8 or for that matter the original S1. Now Leica seems to be confident to play a prominent role in the market and while not yet committing themselves to the digitization of the Barnack format, they have now two formats close to the 24x36 negative size. The M8 is 18x27mm and the S2 is 30x45mm. The first is -1.33x and the second is +1.25x. Diagonals for the three formats are: 32.45; 43.27 and 54.08mm. The announced 70mm lens as the standard lens is thus a slight telelens.
Why is Leica operating in this bandwidth of +/- 1.33 range? You might call it the comfort zone of the engineers and designers. This ratio of reduction and enlargement is within the normal range of construction parameters. Within this zone Leica can still tap the vast resources of knowledge without becoming too experimental. For the new lenses designed for the S2, Leica could use R-lens constructions. And the M8 body is closely modelled on the original filmloading M-body. The new S2 is a look alike of the R9 and only on closer inspection and a size comparison, you note the differences.
There is considerable attention for the new Noctilux 0.95/50mm lens and this is quite understandable. The difference between f/1 and f/0.95 is however less impressive than awe for that magical number would presume. The area of the lens diameter is 2123 square mm versus 2349 square mm and amounts to 10% difference. That is substantial. But one must also accept that any lens aperture may have a tolerance range of 5%. Officially an f/1 design may be in the range of 0.95 to 1.05. Accepting the fact that Leica uses a more narrow interpretation of the tolerance band, it is most plausible that 3% would be allowed. Then we may have the situation that the old Noctilux f/1 at one end of the tolerance range would have the same effective aperture as the new Noctilux f/0.95 at the other end of the range. Both could end up being effectively 0.98!
A 10% larger diameter may be an additional hurdle for the optical designer, but sensitometry tells you that 10% is a mere 1/10 of a stop or EV. That is hardly noticeable!
I am already using the new Elmar-M 3.8/24mm asph and enjoy this lens immensely. The aperture of f/3.8 is intriguing, because the 5% margin of tolerance from an f/4 aperture is from 3.8 to 4.2. On the lens there are click stops for 3.8 and 4! And you see indeed the aperture blades move when changing the aperture ring between these two numbers. This fact should imply that Leica has indeed broken the classical tolerance range of 5% to a much smaller value. Otherwise a f/3.8 aperture next to a f/4 would not make sense.
Leica is slowly moving away from the classical range 1-1.4-2-2.8-4 and now has 0.95-1.4-2.5-3.4-3.8. This fits into the new vision of Mr Lee (yes he did have a vision) to give Leica a new cachet by adopting subtle changes to make the marque more recognizable and different form the rest.
Photokina 2008, continued
24/09/08 19:34 Filed in: Personal
The death of photography has been prematurely announced! Or not?
Walking over the vast area of Photokina in Cologne, a few observations cannot be evaded. The most important observation is the massive shift away from the bare essentials of photographic expertise to blind picture shooting. In the not so distant past, one needed a modicum of knowledge and experience to take a satisfactory picture. Current cameras can only be activated when the subject is smiling, framed correctly and enlarged to scale. The pattern recognition, exposure algorithms (too less light, boost ISO speed or activate shake reduction), background beautifiers, automatic contrast reduction programs and a host of other features help the camera user to take good pictures without even knowing what the camera is doing and without the slightest inclination to override the automatic camera settings. The old idea of camera software designers, to incorporate all necessary photographic knowledge and lore into the programs, has become reality. Shooting from the hip, at all moments in time without thinking about any technicalities is now common practice. And to be honest, people love it to be dismissed form photography classes. Every modern camera, including high tech ones offer video capture features, blurring the distinction between film and photography.
For the first time in Photokina history, a full hall has been devoted to the creation of photo books. The growth of photo books as a market is spectacular.
A second hall has been occupied by flash equipment manufacturers, again indicating an interest in using equipment to make pictures under all kinds of condition.
Camera users are totally focused on making pictures and producing books in print and on the internet. This in itself is to be applauded: it is better to make pictures than to discuss camera technicalities as is the case on most internet forums.
The possibly bad point is that nobody seems to know about the proper use of the aperture choice for selective sharpness or the conscious under exposure to create a certain mood.
The industry is quite happy: every new generation of cameras offers more features that allow users a larger share of photographic ignorance and the ease of taking acceptable pictures is a nice incentive to take more and more pictures.
But the knowledge of the photographic basics is totally lost on the current generation of users. Pictures are assumed to be automatically correct and the industry is claiming that you do not need to know a thing about photography to get good pictures.
The other trend is miniaturization. Pentax shows a new extremely compact dslr, completely in plastic and Panasonic has the Micro Four Thirds cameras, stressing the compact size and the expandability of the camera.
Picture taking is now on the same level as e-mailing, mobile phones and mp3 players: part of the daily actions and to be taken for granted.
The introduction of new high end dslr cameras has been very sparse (Olympus has a camera between the 520 and 3 series, Canon has the 5D), but the overwhelming majority of cameras is compact, cheap and smart.
Very smart to be honest and the results are impressive. Why bother with obsolete knowledge you no longer have a need for.
Picture taking has been severed from photography. This is not a bad trend, just a fact of life. Cars are getting smarter too and ld driver expertise is no longer required. Why should you want to know when you can detect the break away point of a car in a corner when the micro chips can do this for you much more effective.
Photokina 2008
18/09/08 21:05 Filed in: Personal
None of the rumour mills predicted the blow that Canon would deal the competition with the new 5D Mk II. Everybody assumed a neat upgrade of the original 5D. But a camera with the same sensor as you will find in the 1Ds, HD video options, and more state of the art features than can be memorized by a decent person at an absolute Kampfpreis is good news for the buyer. With one single model Canon has checkmated the Sony A900, and the Nikon D3, D700 and D90. Doing this at one stroke is the mark of genius.
I have a suite of Canon F1 and F1new cameras and I am greatly impressed by them. If Leica did not exist, I am sure I would have chosen Canon as my main tool.
There is a fascinating battle between Canon and Nikon, leaving all others in the dust at the moment. With the 5D II Canon has essentially killed the 1Ds and we may assume that a new model with 30 Mp will be announced quite soon. That would be a stab for the digital medium format that is struggling anyway. We may also assume a new 500D with 135 type sensor, to complete the range of 35m formatted sensor sizes.
Panasonic and presumably Olympus have seen this move coming and they are retreating in to the micro 4/3 format (EVIL), hailed by some as the killer application for the Slr type of camera. Olympus can only accept the fact that the introduction of the 4/3 format for serious and professional photography is a bridge too far and they must bite the bullet and return to the old days.
The most interesting move will have to come from Pentax. If they jump onto the 135 format bandwagon they could once again become the number 3 on the market. If not they will face the Borg fate: resistance is futile.
Well I am at Photokina on Monday, the traditional Press day and I am invited to the special Canon and Leica meetings.
I have a suite of Canon F1 and F1new cameras and I am greatly impressed by them. If Leica did not exist, I am sure I would have chosen Canon as my main tool.
There is a fascinating battle between Canon and Nikon, leaving all others in the dust at the moment. With the 5D II Canon has essentially killed the 1Ds and we may assume that a new model with 30 Mp will be announced quite soon. That would be a stab for the digital medium format that is struggling anyway. We may also assume a new 500D with 135 type sensor, to complete the range of 35m formatted sensor sizes.
Panasonic and presumably Olympus have seen this move coming and they are retreating in to the micro 4/3 format (EVIL), hailed by some as the killer application for the Slr type of camera. Olympus can only accept the fact that the introduction of the 4/3 format for serious and professional photography is a bridge too far and they must bite the bullet and return to the old days.
The most interesting move will have to come from Pentax. If they jump onto the 135 format bandwagon they could once again become the number 3 on the market. If not they will face the Borg fate: resistance is futile.
Well I am at Photokina on Monday, the traditional Press day and I am invited to the special Canon and Leica meetings.
New Leica lenses: some thoughts
17/09/08 21:02 Filed in: Products
The new Leica lenses, especially the Noctilux and Summilux designs cannot be more different from the previous introduction of the Summarit range. The Summarits are designed to give excellent performance at relatively modest apertures and to be manufactured in a more economical way. ‘ Modest’ is relative too, as an aperture of 2.5 is still quite wide. Hardly anyone draws attention to the fact that Leica M lenses are generally very compact and as I noted elsewhere, the trade-off between performance and small size is extremely important. When you have unrestricted volume to work with, it is less demanding to create a fine lens. The Summarit range is generally quite compact and this one of the virtues.
The 21 and 24 Summilux designs are really compact, given the physical parameters (21 and 1.4 and 24 and 1.4, both with a back focal length of about 28mm). These boundary conditions place a heavy demand on the design, especially if one wants excellent quality wide open. The 21 and 24 ‘lux versions are heavy, not only because of the all metal mounts, but also because the cramped space is fully occupied by glass elements. You cannot simply push 10 elements into a tube and expect good performance. The basic challenge is to optimize the space between the individual lens elements or groups and keep the total cell length to a minimum.
The centre of the stage is being occupied by the Noctilux, presumably because of the 0.95 aperture, seen as an optical barrier. The true optical barrier is the 0.7 aperture by the way. It goes without saying that a 0.95 aperture for a 50mm lens is spectacular, especially when the image quality at that aperture is for all intents and purposes fully useable.
From the perspective of the demands on an optical design, the 1.4/21 is more impressive. The total energy flow through a lens dictates the level of aberrations and the extent of the countermeasures of the designer to combat the light rays. The energy flow is the result of two parameters: aperture and field of view. The 0.95/50 has the same level of energy transport as a 1.4/21 (twice the field of view and half the aperture). The wide angle design has to cope in addition with significant distortion and the fact that the ‘lux 21 has only a few percentage points of distortion without compromising the other quality aspects is most impressive.In my view this Summilux 1.4/21 is a better example of the designer’s craft than the Noctilux 0.95/50.
No one has ever tried to design a high performance high speed 21mm lens for the 35mm format before and not without good reason.
Add to this feat the fact that the lens is quite compact and you can appreciate the almost superhuman effort to set this lens on the table.
The 21 and 24 Summilux designs are really compact, given the physical parameters (21 and 1.4 and 24 and 1.4, both with a back focal length of about 28mm). These boundary conditions place a heavy demand on the design, especially if one wants excellent quality wide open. The 21 and 24 ‘lux versions are heavy, not only because of the all metal mounts, but also because the cramped space is fully occupied by glass elements. You cannot simply push 10 elements into a tube and expect good performance. The basic challenge is to optimize the space between the individual lens elements or groups and keep the total cell length to a minimum.
The centre of the stage is being occupied by the Noctilux, presumably because of the 0.95 aperture, seen as an optical barrier. The true optical barrier is the 0.7 aperture by the way. It goes without saying that a 0.95 aperture for a 50mm lens is spectacular, especially when the image quality at that aperture is for all intents and purposes fully useable.
From the perspective of the demands on an optical design, the 1.4/21 is more impressive. The total energy flow through a lens dictates the level of aberrations and the extent of the countermeasures of the designer to combat the light rays. The energy flow is the result of two parameters: aperture and field of view. The 0.95/50 has the same level of energy transport as a 1.4/21 (twice the field of view and half the aperture). The wide angle design has to cope in addition with significant distortion and the fact that the ‘lux 21 has only a few percentage points of distortion without compromising the other quality aspects is most impressive.In my view this Summilux 1.4/21 is a better example of the designer’s craft than the Noctilux 0.95/50.
No one has ever tried to design a high performance high speed 21mm lens for the 35mm format before and not without good reason.
Add to this feat the fact that the lens is quite compact and you can appreciate the almost superhuman effort to set this lens on the table.
Can we survive without a 135 size sensor?
10/09/08 20:05 Filed in: Products
The new Sony Alpha 900 has a large 24.6 Mp sensor that sports the old (?) 135 format of film designation: the 24 x 36mm size negative. The camera has interesting specs, but this product will be classified as a Minolta 9000 and will presumably share this predecessors fate: it gets credit from the press and other reviewers for its capabilities, quality and professional profile. The old Minolta 9000 got equal praise and comments, but when you have to put your money on the table, most people will go for the safe option: Nikon or Canon. The Minolta 9000 was undoubtedly a top-class camera and certainly a mile stone product. The A900 might be categorized in the same class, but then and now the sales volume did not warrant a long term presence in the market.
Undoubtedly a new Nikon D?? will receive the same sensor, but at twice the price it will not be a direct competitor.
Let us hope the A 900 will fare better in current market conditions than the old A9000. Competition is really needed to revive the market.
The upcoming new Canon 5D II will have a 18 Mp sensor and a 135 format too. The high end market then will be populated by cameras with 135 format sensor and pixel amounts from 12 to 24 million.
The really important question is whether the current crop of lenses can handle such massive amount of pixels with pixel pitches around 5 micron. You might question the capabilities of most lenses to even resolve half of these. The cutoff limit of the sensor filters will restrict the maximum resolution in any case. The resulting RAW file sizes will be 50 to 100 Mb and then the question is who needs these sizes and who can handle them.
The Nikon option with 12 Mp is still the best proposal for the moment. Basically we have the choice between a high contrast, moderate resolution high speed sensor (Tri-X) and a lower contrast, high resolution. lower speed film like Pan-X. Looking at the Kodak site, where you can still find (with some trouble) current film types, Tri-X is still riding high ands slow speed films are gone. What will be the best bet for the camera that will be optimal for picture taking?
All magazines in the past raved about the capabilities of slow speed films, but none survived (the new microfilms occupy a niche).
It would be nice if you could have a sensor in 135 format and a choice of using 24 or 12 Mp while keeping the full dimensions. The current option of using less pixels implies a smaller format and that is not what we want.
Without a 135 sensor size no company can survive today’s rat race. We have to wait for Pentax and Leica to lay the cards on the table. Both are very reputable companies with a great tradition and a knack for solid long term solutions.
Undoubtedly a new Nikon D?? will receive the same sensor, but at twice the price it will not be a direct competitor.
Let us hope the A 900 will fare better in current market conditions than the old A9000. Competition is really needed to revive the market.
The upcoming new Canon 5D II will have a 18 Mp sensor and a 135 format too. The high end market then will be populated by cameras with 135 format sensor and pixel amounts from 12 to 24 million.
The really important question is whether the current crop of lenses can handle such massive amount of pixels with pixel pitches around 5 micron. You might question the capabilities of most lenses to even resolve half of these. The cutoff limit of the sensor filters will restrict the maximum resolution in any case. The resulting RAW file sizes will be 50 to 100 Mb and then the question is who needs these sizes and who can handle them.
The Nikon option with 12 Mp is still the best proposal for the moment. Basically we have the choice between a high contrast, moderate resolution high speed sensor (Tri-X) and a lower contrast, high resolution. lower speed film like Pan-X. Looking at the Kodak site, where you can still find (with some trouble) current film types, Tri-X is still riding high ands slow speed films are gone. What will be the best bet for the camera that will be optimal for picture taking?
All magazines in the past raved about the capabilities of slow speed films, but none survived (the new microfilms occupy a niche).
It would be nice if you could have a sensor in 135 format and a choice of using 24 or 12 Mp while keeping the full dimensions. The current option of using less pixels implies a smaller format and that is not what we want.
Without a 135 sensor size no company can survive today’s rat race. We have to wait for Pentax and Leica to lay the cards on the table. Both are very reputable companies with a great tradition and a knack for solid long term solutions.
Umwerfung aller Werte
01/09/08 19:22 Filed in: photographic culture
The title of this contribution is German for “Toppling of all values” and refers to the slow, but unavoidable change in photographic values and technique. Most persons, involved in the world of photography and/or deeply steeped in photographic technique, will continue to deny the profound changes that are being forged by current cameras.
The new Nikon D90 is such an example. Superficially it is one of the many DSLR-types that have been introduced lately in a staggering pace. The commercial reason is quite evident. Between 50% and 60% of all cameras bear the name of Canon or Nikon and we may safely presume that in the high-end segment (professionals with commercial intents and fanatics/enthusiasts with equipment focus) the penetration is above 90%. We may feel sorry for marques like Pentax or Sony, but they do not have the potential to topple the big ones or even make significant inroads in their market presence.
The D90 is, according to David Pogue of the NYT, (to give credit where credit is due) is a mind-blowing, game-changing camera. It is the video capability that turns the D90 into a completely new kind of recording instrument. The possibility to create High Definition video with a DSLR and get good results with a range of lenses with Image Stability, changes every photographic reporter into a documentary movie maker. And this can be done without additional investment and additional equipment.
Anyone who still asserts that the digital revolution will not change the core values and roots of the photographic style and art, should rethink. The era of the VSLR (video slr) has begun.
Canon’s most recent introduction is the 50D. here we see gradual improvements over the 40D (we may wonder who needs these additional features). The 15 Mp sensor has pixels with a pitch of 5 micron, which asks for a level of definition and resolution that is hardly offered by any lens in the Canon stable. So here we have Canon falling into the pixel number game, which is a shame for a company with the standing of Canon. We can wait for a new 35mm sized sensor with more than 30 Mp in two years time. This camera is Canon’s reply to the challenge of Nikon in the mid segment. It seems that Canon is betting on pixel numbers where Nikon has its stake in high sensitivity.
The Canon 5D Mark 2 seems to be held off until Photokina that is being held in just a month from now. The number of image recording instruments with a high desirability factor is growing rapidly, but in the quest for market share and by the inherent nature of modern technology, the feature list will become longer and longer and the scope of the cameras will expand beyond recognition.
It simply has to be this way as there is a technological limit to the introduction of ever more features: we already have accurate shutter speeds of 1/4000, efficient AF systems with manual back focus corrections for different lenses, accurate exposure systems, hundreds of custom functions and high speed processing and 100% viewfinders. The basket of features is almost full and so we need a scope expansion in order to sell more products.
I am currenly conducting a comparison between the Nikon D3 and the Leica M8, two products that are a world apart to see which one offers the most pleasure in picture taking and delivers the finest results. It will be a technocultural comparison to fathom the intrinsic value of these cameras for the photographic craft. After all, the result is what counts and the result is defined and constrained by the emotion and skill of the image maker, not the number of options that are available.
I am still using Kodachrome and Ilfrd Delta100 in my MP and M7. Obsolete technology, most readers will say and in a sense this is true. But working with a handheld exposure meter (my Sekonic 758D) and assessing the brightness distribution of a scene and mentally viewing the characteristic curve and exploring where the brightness values are pegged on this curve and making an informed decision is a quite laborious process, but it helps to see the scene and bottom line it is a joy to exercise this craft, obsolete or not.
A few days ago I visited a paper mill situated in the middle of the Netherlands where paper is still being made with time honored processes (more than a century old) by hand and with machines driven by water and steam. The resulting products are beautiful to feel and handle and they print very well. Artists all over the world visit the factory to hand pick some paper and even ordering their own special recipe. Not a world beater commercially this factory! They produce 75 tons of paper in a whole year, an amount that modern factories produce in a day or even a few hours.
Spending a few hours in such an environment is quite refreshing and brings the necessary perspective to modern technological developments.
But I also like using the new Silver Efex Pro on my Mac.
Looking at the many websites with zillions of pictures made with superduper cameras leaves one question unanswered: why does all this high tech not enhance the quality and content of the average picture: since the first snapshots made in the USA I cannot detect any progress.
The new Nikon D90 is such an example. Superficially it is one of the many DSLR-types that have been introduced lately in a staggering pace. The commercial reason is quite evident. Between 50% and 60% of all cameras bear the name of Canon or Nikon and we may safely presume that in the high-end segment (professionals with commercial intents and fanatics/enthusiasts with equipment focus) the penetration is above 90%. We may feel sorry for marques like Pentax or Sony, but they do not have the potential to topple the big ones or even make significant inroads in their market presence.
The D90 is, according to David Pogue of the NYT, (to give credit where credit is due) is a mind-blowing, game-changing camera. It is the video capability that turns the D90 into a completely new kind of recording instrument. The possibility to create High Definition video with a DSLR and get good results with a range of lenses with Image Stability, changes every photographic reporter into a documentary movie maker. And this can be done without additional investment and additional equipment.
Anyone who still asserts that the digital revolution will not change the core values and roots of the photographic style and art, should rethink. The era of the VSLR (video slr) has begun.
Canon’s most recent introduction is the 50D. here we see gradual improvements over the 40D (we may wonder who needs these additional features). The 15 Mp sensor has pixels with a pitch of 5 micron, which asks for a level of definition and resolution that is hardly offered by any lens in the Canon stable. So here we have Canon falling into the pixel number game, which is a shame for a company with the standing of Canon. We can wait for a new 35mm sized sensor with more than 30 Mp in two years time. This camera is Canon’s reply to the challenge of Nikon in the mid segment. It seems that Canon is betting on pixel numbers where Nikon has its stake in high sensitivity.
The Canon 5D Mark 2 seems to be held off until Photokina that is being held in just a month from now. The number of image recording instruments with a high desirability factor is growing rapidly, but in the quest for market share and by the inherent nature of modern technology, the feature list will become longer and longer and the scope of the cameras will expand beyond recognition.
It simply has to be this way as there is a technological limit to the introduction of ever more features: we already have accurate shutter speeds of 1/4000, efficient AF systems with manual back focus corrections for different lenses, accurate exposure systems, hundreds of custom functions and high speed processing and 100% viewfinders. The basket of features is almost full and so we need a scope expansion in order to sell more products.
I am currenly conducting a comparison between the Nikon D3 and the Leica M8, two products that are a world apart to see which one offers the most pleasure in picture taking and delivers the finest results. It will be a technocultural comparison to fathom the intrinsic value of these cameras for the photographic craft. After all, the result is what counts and the result is defined and constrained by the emotion and skill of the image maker, not the number of options that are available.
I am still using Kodachrome and Ilfrd Delta100 in my MP and M7. Obsolete technology, most readers will say and in a sense this is true. But working with a handheld exposure meter (my Sekonic 758D) and assessing the brightness distribution of a scene and mentally viewing the characteristic curve and exploring where the brightness values are pegged on this curve and making an informed decision is a quite laborious process, but it helps to see the scene and bottom line it is a joy to exercise this craft, obsolete or not.
A few days ago I visited a paper mill situated in the middle of the Netherlands where paper is still being made with time honored processes (more than a century old) by hand and with machines driven by water and steam. The resulting products are beautiful to feel and handle and they print very well. Artists all over the world visit the factory to hand pick some paper and even ordering their own special recipe. Not a world beater commercially this factory! They produce 75 tons of paper in a whole year, an amount that modern factories produce in a day or even a few hours.
Spending a few hours in such an environment is quite refreshing and brings the necessary perspective to modern technological developments.
But I also like using the new Silver Efex Pro on my Mac.
Looking at the many websites with zillions of pictures made with superduper cameras leaves one question unanswered: why does all this high tech not enhance the quality and content of the average picture: since the first snapshots made in the USA I cannot detect any progress.
History revisited
25/08/08 19:37 Filed in: Products
It seems that the cards have been dealt in the world of photographic products. The success of the new generation of Nikon cameras is undeniable and in its wake the stature of the Barnack format as the standard for the future sensor size has been firmly established. Known as the full-format chip or FF-sensor (in fact not the best choice as a designator, technically spoken), the 24 x 36mm sensor is the benchmark for all current and future digital cameras. Whether this format is really required or needed is no longer a question, it is simply a fact. Olympus bravely tried to topple the dominance of the classical film size. The FourThird format has its technical and optical advantages, but is simply is not what we need or want.
At first it was Canon (as usual taking the role of innovator) whose products redefined the scene, but one might say that with the 20 Mb sensor the limit for practical photography had been reached. Many users complain about the unwieldy file-sizes that are generated. Nikon took a more sensible approach and restricted the size to 12 Mb. In fact the classical choice between a high speed film with less resolution (Tri-X) and a low speed film with high resolution (Technical Pan). The TP does not exist anymore, but TX is still going strong.
There is no question that Nikon will introduce a 20+ megapixel sensor (presumably the same that is being used by Sony in the upcoming ‘900’ model. The additional Nikon model (coded as D3X) is required stuff to cover the top end of the market, but more out of prestige than out of necessity.
Sony will want such a camera to signal their seriousness for the professional up-market domain. But the Sony products, however cleverly marketed are Minolta’s in disguise and just as in the past, the Minolta camera line was always a B-side product. In the past, Canon and Nikon were the two companies that mattered with Pentax a good second choice (and yes the Leica as a choice out of passion). If you really need a big sized negative (sorry, a large image file) you had and have the Hasselblad and the other big format products.
In that photographic past, Nikon was the professional choice par excellence. The range of Nikon products for the enthusiast or even fanatical amateur was very limited if not non-existant. Canon on the other hand was very strong in the amateur market with some inroads in the professional market. This changed with the introduction of the fine F-series of cameras, but this camera never broke the dominance of Nikon.
We see this same market segmentation today. Canon is unbeatable in the range that is covered by the 1000D to the 40D/5D and vulnerable in the 1Dx series. Nikon is for now the champion of the 24x36mm sized digital sensor with the D3 and D700 and there are so many gaps in this number game that it is reasonable to expect more products with the same sensor size as soon as scale economies will have its effects on price and cost.
This simple choice matrix (APS-C or 24x36mm and 12 Mp versus 20Mp and Nikon versus Canon) will make obsolete the current obsession (as exemplified by the dpreview approach) with the comparison of endless feature lists (see my comment about the infantile consumer). These lists of features are compiled with the assumption that more features are always to be preferred. But counting features is the simple alternative to really in-depth reviews that take time to compile and take time to read and digest. Water will become the scarcest resource in the near future (not oil!), but time will be a good second and with it the ability to cope with TIO (total information overload).
Am I ready to buy a Nikon? No, I am sitting on my hands, waiting for Leica to introduce the rangefinder camera that will have as much impact on the world as the M3 once had (an impossible task? Maybe, but without hope we are all lost).
And in the meantime I am comparing Ilford Delta100 and Kodak T_Max 100 in the very classical CG512 developer. And I am printing images developed with Aperture and Silver Efex Pro on baryta paper in the Epson 3800. Still living in two worlds. And I am very impressed by the Silverfast DC program.
At first it was Canon (as usual taking the role of innovator) whose products redefined the scene, but one might say that with the 20 Mb sensor the limit for practical photography had been reached. Many users complain about the unwieldy file-sizes that are generated. Nikon took a more sensible approach and restricted the size to 12 Mb. In fact the classical choice between a high speed film with less resolution (Tri-X) and a low speed film with high resolution (Technical Pan). The TP does not exist anymore, but TX is still going strong.
There is no question that Nikon will introduce a 20+ megapixel sensor (presumably the same that is being used by Sony in the upcoming ‘900’ model. The additional Nikon model (coded as D3X) is required stuff to cover the top end of the market, but more out of prestige than out of necessity.
Sony will want such a camera to signal their seriousness for the professional up-market domain. But the Sony products, however cleverly marketed are Minolta’s in disguise and just as in the past, the Minolta camera line was always a B-side product. In the past, Canon and Nikon were the two companies that mattered with Pentax a good second choice (and yes the Leica as a choice out of passion). If you really need a big sized negative (sorry, a large image file) you had and have the Hasselblad and the other big format products.
In that photographic past, Nikon was the professional choice par excellence. The range of Nikon products for the enthusiast or even fanatical amateur was very limited if not non-existant. Canon on the other hand was very strong in the amateur market with some inroads in the professional market. This changed with the introduction of the fine F-series of cameras, but this camera never broke the dominance of Nikon.
We see this same market segmentation today. Canon is unbeatable in the range that is covered by the 1000D to the 40D/5D and vulnerable in the 1Dx series. Nikon is for now the champion of the 24x36mm sized digital sensor with the D3 and D700 and there are so many gaps in this number game that it is reasonable to expect more products with the same sensor size as soon as scale economies will have its effects on price and cost.
This simple choice matrix (APS-C or 24x36mm and 12 Mp versus 20Mp and Nikon versus Canon) will make obsolete the current obsession (as exemplified by the dpreview approach) with the comparison of endless feature lists (see my comment about the infantile consumer). These lists of features are compiled with the assumption that more features are always to be preferred. But counting features is the simple alternative to really in-depth reviews that take time to compile and take time to read and digest. Water will become the scarcest resource in the near future (not oil!), but time will be a good second and with it the ability to cope with TIO (total information overload).
Am I ready to buy a Nikon? No, I am sitting on my hands, waiting for Leica to introduce the rangefinder camera that will have as much impact on the world as the M3 once had (an impossible task? Maybe, but without hope we are all lost).
And in the meantime I am comparing Ilford Delta100 and Kodak T_Max 100 in the very classical CG512 developer. And I am printing images developed with Aperture and Silver Efex Pro on baryta paper in the Epson 3800. Still living in two worlds. And I am very impressed by the Silverfast DC program.
More time for testreports please!
17/08/08 20:55 Filed in: Products
In a recent issue of the German magazine “Photographie” the new Hasselblad with 50 Mb sensor size has been described and commented upon. On one page you will find several misconceptions: it is stated that the 50 million pixels on the sensor allow the recording of an A4 page at 2.5 kilometers distance. This is of course an ambiguous statement: does this imply the outlines of that page or the text on that page. The angular resolution of the eye is approximately one minute of arc. This amounts to 2.9 cm at a distance of 100 meters and 29 cm at a distance of 1000 meters or one km. At 2.5 kilometers the eye can separate objects that are about 75 cm apart. But the number of pixels in itself is not related to this calculation. It is the size of the pixel. For the Hasselblad this is stated as 6 micron. This size of pixel is not uncommon for many high end cameras, like the newer Nikon and Canon products. The pixel pitch for the DX sensor is 5.5 micron and for the FX sensor it is 8.45 micron. All things being equal at the same distance any sensor with a 6 micron pixel pitch will be able to record the same level of detail. A bigger sensor may be able to capture a bigger part of the scene, but not finer details.
The text also mentions that the smaller pixel size allows a faster frame rate: this is wrong again: now the total size determines the throughput of the system, not the pixel size. The smaller pixelsize will, according to the text, improve color reproduction and allow faster shutter speeds and reduces battery load.
Such factual errors are not uncommon in the popular press. But even more common are the language twists that are required to differentiate between comparable products. In the same issue of Photographie there is a comparison between the D300, D700 and D3. These three cameras cover overlapping domains and it is really difficult to define a suitable profile. Then the author has to use poetics to get to the point; the D3 is a fascinating all-round camera, and the D700 compact all-round camera and the D300 is a compact universal camera. I wonder what to make of these descriptions.
The more general point I wish to make here is the fact that the short product cycles of current products and the fact that so many cameras are competing with each other and have to described instantly as they appear on the market. The fast pace and global coverage of the internet forces one to create instant tests and reviews. If your report or review would become available six months after the introduction of the camera, no one would want to read it and you will loose readership or a reduction of website its. Both are bad for advertisers. So you swim with the masses and do an overnight report.
Yesterday I bought secondhand a copy of Crawley’s Canon F1 book. I am amazed at the depth of this report, but also at the length of time it took to publish. In those days one had the leisurely pace of a year to report on a product. It would be really nice if one could have time to report on a camera in depth: to really understand a camera like the Nikon D3 or even d700 or Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H3DII-50 or for that matter an M8 one needs several months of uninterrupted use and reporting. After that period of time one would be able to make more meaningful and insightful remarks about the true character and the true profile of a high grade camera or lens or accessory.
Even now after two years use of the M8, new aspects are appearing that you cannot find after a few days of handling the camera. And the same happens with other cameras too. The hurried reviews that are the norm now do the general public a disservice.
The text also mentions that the smaller pixel size allows a faster frame rate: this is wrong again: now the total size determines the throughput of the system, not the pixel size. The smaller pixelsize will, according to the text, improve color reproduction and allow faster shutter speeds and reduces battery load.
Such factual errors are not uncommon in the popular press. But even more common are the language twists that are required to differentiate between comparable products. In the same issue of Photographie there is a comparison between the D300, D700 and D3. These three cameras cover overlapping domains and it is really difficult to define a suitable profile. Then the author has to use poetics to get to the point; the D3 is a fascinating all-round camera, and the D700 compact all-round camera and the D300 is a compact universal camera. I wonder what to make of these descriptions.
The more general point I wish to make here is the fact that the short product cycles of current products and the fact that so many cameras are competing with each other and have to described instantly as they appear on the market. The fast pace and global coverage of the internet forces one to create instant tests and reviews. If your report or review would become available six months after the introduction of the camera, no one would want to read it and you will loose readership or a reduction of website its. Both are bad for advertisers. So you swim with the masses and do an overnight report.
Yesterday I bought secondhand a copy of Crawley’s Canon F1 book. I am amazed at the depth of this report, but also at the length of time it took to publish. In those days one had the leisurely pace of a year to report on a product. It would be really nice if one could have time to report on a camera in depth: to really understand a camera like the Nikon D3 or even d700 or Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H3DII-50 or for that matter an M8 one needs several months of uninterrupted use and reporting. After that period of time one would be able to make more meaningful and insightful remarks about the true character and the true profile of a high grade camera or lens or accessory.
Even now after two years use of the M8, new aspects are appearing that you cannot find after a few days of handling the camera. And the same happens with other cameras too. The hurried reviews that are the norm now do the general public a disservice.
Micro Four Thirds
12/08/08 17:24 Filed in: Products
Olympus and Panasonic recently introduced a second version of the Four Thirds technique, the Micro Four Thirds (MFT). It utilizes the same sensor size as every other FT-camera, but the body has been designed without a mirror box, allowing a shorter flange back distance to be used. Olympus obviously has studied the sales figures and camera trends and noted several things: (1) the offensive with the E-series to invite professional imagers to adopt the FT format as a serious instrument competing with ‘normal’ dSLR cameras with APS-C and 135-format sensors has petered out. The E-3, inherently a very capable camera, did not catch on as a professional tool. (2) the extremely positive reviews of the Sigma DP1 (disregarding the actual shortcomings of that model) and (3) the good sales results for the small E-xxx series (especially the 420 and 520 models). The conclusion they reached must have been: there is room for more compact high quality cameras with interchangeable lenses (anyone noting the bulk and weight of the pro-dSLR?) and it is here that the small FT format can score points. The technique of Live View (when it matures to a useable tool) can indeed dispense with the mirror and pentaprism of the ‘classical’ slr concept.
The redirection of the scope and design of the FT format also rings the death-knell of the professional E-3 model which will linger on as a flagship presumably.
We will have to wait for real camera models to assess the true potential of this move. To claim that “Today's announcement of the Micro Four Thirds system is arguably the most significant camera-related announcement of the year.” might be a bit premature. The introduction of a new camera concept is fraught with problems and history suggests that it is hardly successful: witness the half-frame format (Olympus too), the Kodak disc system, the APS system and so on. Camera buyers are a very conservative lot and need a long period before they adopt a new camera system.
On the other hand the concept looks quite convincing: a compact camera we all want, when high quality interchangeable lenses can be used, this is even better and a good useable Live View system is certainly an additional positive aspect. Several years ago I concluded that the FT format might become the start of a modern age Barnack camera. This prediction seems to become reality now: When we would not know better,what would we think of a compact non-slr camera system with high-quality interchangeable lenses, short distance between capture surface and lens bayonet flange? Adding the coupled rangefinder we would surely conclude that this could be a new Leica camera. Live View is not to confused with a CRF system, but as a modern day alternative it just might, were it not for its cumbersome viewing method.
The redirection of the scope and design of the FT format also rings the death-knell of the professional E-3 model which will linger on as a flagship presumably.
We will have to wait for real camera models to assess the true potential of this move. To claim that “Today's announcement of the Micro Four Thirds system is arguably the most significant camera-related announcement of the year.” might be a bit premature. The introduction of a new camera concept is fraught with problems and history suggests that it is hardly successful: witness the half-frame format (Olympus too), the Kodak disc system, the APS system and so on. Camera buyers are a very conservative lot and need a long period before they adopt a new camera system.
On the other hand the concept looks quite convincing: a compact camera we all want, when high quality interchangeable lenses can be used, this is even better and a good useable Live View system is certainly an additional positive aspect. Several years ago I concluded that the FT format might become the start of a modern age Barnack camera. This prediction seems to become reality now: When we would not know better,what would we think of a compact non-slr camera system with high-quality interchangeable lenses, short distance between capture surface and lens bayonet flange? Adding the coupled rangefinder we would surely conclude that this could be a new Leica camera. Live View is not to confused with a CRF system, but as a modern day alternative it just might, were it not for its cumbersome viewing method.
Slow death of the darkroom?
12/08/08 16:42 Filed in: Personal
A few days ago I met with one of my friends, the owner and manufacturer of Amaloco chemicals. He told me that he would stop producing chemicals at the end of the year. Earnings are down to zero, the prospect of ever dwindling sales is emotionally painful when you still love your products. It is remarkable that sales in the Scandinavian countries are still much stronger than in the Netherlands, where AgX Photography is dead. A recent book about the Death of the Darkroom documents the handful of persons who still own and use the chemical darkroom against all odds and all commentaries that digital is the much better choice. While I write these words, I ear a mighty steam locomotive passing by at about 200 meters from my home. There is an old railroad track almost in my backyard, that is daily used by enthusiasts who maintain and operate classical steam locomotives dating from the 1920’s to the 1950’s. Is AgX photography on that same track? Most would assume so, but the maker of high quality motion picture equipment dares to walk against conventional wisdom and in a recent paper argues and even scientifically underpins the fact that AgX capture has a higher performance than the digital video capture. For Super-16 there is hardly an alternative for silver halide materials when one wishes the best of quality employing excellent lenses.
In a paper written by Tadaaki Tani one finds the clam that even in this period of time, so imbued with the digital paradigm, AgX photography s a valid and viable alternative to the digital capture of images. Current silver halide materials can record more than 80 linepairs/mm, where digital capture stops at 50 - 60 lp/mm at best. The distribution of grain clumps in the emulsion is random, where the pixel structure is regular. This fact explains why at the limit of useful resolution, AgX can record more detail, even when the resolution calculations are identical.
I am no Luddite, but I would argue strongly in favor of the coexistence of both media, AgX and silicon. Use the one that gives the best results for the job or the intention and which gives most pleasure. The almost partisan and religious fervor with which the adopters and proponents of the dSLR way of photography attack the AgX users is based more on hype than on substance. You can expect from magazine editors and commercially operating journalists that they follow the gold-rush which happens to be found in the digital and consumer electronics domain these days.
I am still using Kodachrome and every time when I open the box I am amazed and delighted about the vibrance of the colors and the sharpness of the details. The MP with Summilux-M 1.4/50 asph. is still in full use. It is a pity that within the house of Leica the proponents of AgX have been silenced, as if it is a shame to refer to the great Leica tradition and the Leica cult of silver halide photography.
I have to admit that it is not easy to walk around in both worlds and trying to be proficient with all these techniques. It does help you to keep the proper distance to the hype of the day.
In a paper written by Tadaaki Tani one finds the clam that even in this period of time, so imbued with the digital paradigm, AgX photography s a valid and viable alternative to the digital capture of images. Current silver halide materials can record more than 80 linepairs/mm, where digital capture stops at 50 - 60 lp/mm at best. The distribution of grain clumps in the emulsion is random, where the pixel structure is regular. This fact explains why at the limit of useful resolution, AgX can record more detail, even when the resolution calculations are identical.
I am no Luddite, but I would argue strongly in favor of the coexistence of both media, AgX and silicon. Use the one that gives the best results for the job or the intention and which gives most pleasure. The almost partisan and religious fervor with which the adopters and proponents of the dSLR way of photography attack the AgX users is based more on hype than on substance. You can expect from magazine editors and commercially operating journalists that they follow the gold-rush which happens to be found in the digital and consumer electronics domain these days.
I am still using Kodachrome and every time when I open the box I am amazed and delighted about the vibrance of the colors and the sharpness of the details. The MP with Summilux-M 1.4/50 asph. is still in full use. It is a pity that within the house of Leica the proponents of AgX have been silenced, as if it is a shame to refer to the great Leica tradition and the Leica cult of silver halide photography.
I have to admit that it is not easy to walk around in both worlds and trying to be proficient with all these techniques. It does help you to keep the proper distance to the hype of the day.
The lost Pianissimo
10/08/08 20:31 Filed in: photographic culture
In music theory ‘Pianissimo’ refers to the sound level of a piece of music. Music can be played loud or very softly. Pianissimo is the softest sound possible. Current culture is invaded by loudness, visual and acoustic and even sensory. It is known that the spirit of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (but not exclusively there) have been broken by lengthy exposure to very loud rock music. Not only music is becoming very loud and even aggressive. The whole of culture seems to be invaded by tumultuous noise and aggressive behavior. In politics (as in weblogs and user forums) brutal verbal attacks are commonplace and in our culture aggressive language is almost naturally followed by senseless acts of violence. The idea of pianissimo seems to be expelled from society. This is really bad: the art of allusion, the subtle reference and the sensitive note are gone from culture.
In photography the same phenomenon can be seen: current pictures are often raw, corporeal, and colour-saturated. Modern pictorial language is of course very intensely influenced by the technological possibilities and these are predominantly digital nowadays. The poster-sized grain-free (clean) and sharp images, often manipulated, present a glamorous reality that is almost palpable.
This kind of images is a world apart from what was being the norm several decades ago. The recent book about Robert Capa, “This is war”, shows five series of photos in different theaters of war, taken at very close range (Capa-style). The pictures themselves are in a strange way reassuring because of the quiet composition of the image, the seriousness of the photographer and the subject that is treated with respect. Some days ago, Mr. Karadzic had a press conference and a photographer had taken a picture of the scene, where dozens of photographers had coagulated and were trying at pointblank range to get a memorable picture of that person. The scene had strong reminiscences of an execution, so massive and aggressive were the photographers approaching the person. Eisenstein’s pictures of the Nazi bosses are very thought provoking but in a quite subtle manner: this photographic style, the true pianissimo, is no longer seen nor appreciated. Our culture is totally nuts about images, but what is lacking is respect for the image.
The great masters of Leica photography, from H C-B to Robert Frank and all those others in between, worked in pianissimo. The pictorial content is heavy with content and visual richness, but the world that is inhabited by the subjects is treated with great respect, however gruesome the scene.
A culture that has expelled pianissimo, is doomed. It is certainly no accidental coincidence that the Leica rangefinder camera is the preferred tool for these photographers: the instrument is the message. Looking again at the Karadzic picture, I cannot help associating the equipment of the photographers with an arsenal, an armory of image hunters. Current high tech Nikons and Canons are very impressive instruments, heavy and large, and invariably equipped with a large flash unit and a large zoomlens. Compare these tools with a diminutive Leica RF with a simple 90mm lens. A bigger contrast between ‘pianissimo’ and ‘fortissimo’ is hardly possible.
I do not wish to revive the quiet picture style of the fifties out of nostalgic feelings, but because I think that Leica has a patrimony to refer to, not only in camera manufacture, but also in picture style. The Leica photographic culture has more to offer than a simple transgression from film based photography to digital image processing. The fading away of the Leica icon from the photographic presence has its roots in Leica’s view that putting a sensor at the location of the film gate is all that is needed to catapult the Leica camera to the forefront of the photographic world. This is not true: the Leica name does not inspire the same amount of enthusiasm and respect that it used to command.
In photography the same phenomenon can be seen: current pictures are often raw, corporeal, and colour-saturated. Modern pictorial language is of course very intensely influenced by the technological possibilities and these are predominantly digital nowadays. The poster-sized grain-free (clean) and sharp images, often manipulated, present a glamorous reality that is almost palpable.
This kind of images is a world apart from what was being the norm several decades ago. The recent book about Robert Capa, “This is war”, shows five series of photos in different theaters of war, taken at very close range (Capa-style). The pictures themselves are in a strange way reassuring because of the quiet composition of the image, the seriousness of the photographer and the subject that is treated with respect. Some days ago, Mr. Karadzic had a press conference and a photographer had taken a picture of the scene, where dozens of photographers had coagulated and were trying at pointblank range to get a memorable picture of that person. The scene had strong reminiscences of an execution, so massive and aggressive were the photographers approaching the person. Eisenstein’s pictures of the Nazi bosses are very thought provoking but in a quite subtle manner: this photographic style, the true pianissimo, is no longer seen nor appreciated. Our culture is totally nuts about images, but what is lacking is respect for the image.
The great masters of Leica photography, from H C-B to Robert Frank and all those others in between, worked in pianissimo. The pictorial content is heavy with content and visual richness, but the world that is inhabited by the subjects is treated with great respect, however gruesome the scene.
A culture that has expelled pianissimo, is doomed. It is certainly no accidental coincidence that the Leica rangefinder camera is the preferred tool for these photographers: the instrument is the message. Looking again at the Karadzic picture, I cannot help associating the equipment of the photographers with an arsenal, an armory of image hunters. Current high tech Nikons and Canons are very impressive instruments, heavy and large, and invariably equipped with a large flash unit and a large zoomlens. Compare these tools with a diminutive Leica RF with a simple 90mm lens. A bigger contrast between ‘pianissimo’ and ‘fortissimo’ is hardly possible.
I do not wish to revive the quiet picture style of the fifties out of nostalgic feelings, but because I think that Leica has a patrimony to refer to, not only in camera manufacture, but also in picture style. The Leica photographic culture has more to offer than a simple transgression from film based photography to digital image processing. The fading away of the Leica icon from the photographic presence has its roots in Leica’s view that putting a sensor at the location of the film gate is all that is needed to catapult the Leica camera to the forefront of the photographic world. This is not true: the Leica name does not inspire the same amount of enthusiasm and respect that it used to command.