Personal
Photography 3.0
02/05/09 21:34
Around 2003 the notion of Web 2.0 was introduced. It designated a series of new trends around permanent connectivity where individuals and information can be accessible everywhere and at any time. Wi-Fi at every location, iPhones and Blackberries, hotspots, web 2.0 applications in mobile phones. With Facebook and Youtube and FlickR you can share images (still and video) in real time every moment of the day and where ever you are. Collective intelligence and continuous partial attention became the norm. People spent less time focusing on a single act or person, but were constantly scanning all gadgets and information channels (email, phones, twitter) in fear of missing anything.
The fact that persons want to be engaged simultaneously in many information channels and can record and share every aspect of their own lives asks for multi-purpose and multi-function tools. The mobile phone is a good example: it functions as a phone, an email client, a camera, a video, an internet browser, even as a simple computer, a navigation tool you: name it.
The era of single purpose devices or tools is ending: a car is no longer a vehicle for transporting people, but a life style experience in movement, more like a mobile home or office or preferably both.
Cameras are following the same trends. To fit into the culture of permanent communication and sharing of images and experiences at all times, they need to shrink in size and offer all kinds of functions that span the whole gamut of visual communication options.
Camera-phones and compact cameras are selling by tens of millions and the newest generation of cameras offer still photography and video recording at a high level of quality. The new Canon 500D and Nikon D5000 point In this direction but are still too big and clumsy to be all time companions. No one now wants to hang a camera around the neck as it will hamper social activities. The whole concept of dedicating time to a single activity like taking pictures in the classical tradition of photography is becoming obsolete. The new Lumix GH1 is pointing in the right direction. It is easy to use, very compact, can create all kinds of images (still and moving), has sound recording and so on. It also delivers good quality imagery.
The trend then favors ever more compact cameras with an ever widening range of features for all kinds of images that can be shared real time to everybody without the need for post processing outside the camera.
Current DSLRs have in fact not changed in shape and functions since 1985. The Canon 1D and the Nikon D3 share most features and body shape with the classical film loading auto-all camera. like the Canon EOS 1 and the Nikon F5. In fact all DSLRs (like Pentax, Sony, Canon, Nikon) have functions and body shapes that are now at least thirty years old. Medium format cameras are no different: a digital Hasselblad is almost identical to an antique film loading Hasselblad in every respect except the technology of image capture.
This type of cameras is functionally at the end of the life cycle. A bigger sensor and even higher pixel density and more speed are possible, but will not enhance the inherent capabilities of these cameras. Evolutionary they are dinosaurs: they will presumably not disappear: their habitat is shielding them from extinction, but they are stuck in a dead corner of the photographic universe.
The changing environment of photography 3.0 (as noted at the beginning of this article) will favor new species like the Lumix GH1 and others. Photography will change too, but that is the basic idea of evolution.
Presumably we will see a Nikon D4 and even D5 and a Canon 1D MK IV and maybe a 0D, but the hegemony of the single lens reflex in its current state of the art is over.
One might object to this analysis by referring to the current group of professionals, all using the heavy and big DSLRs and the digital backs.
Remember then that the evolution of photography has always been initiated by innovations in amateur cameras. The original Leica was laughed at by professionals as a toy because of its small negatives, the Konica Autoreflex, the first with autoexposure was ridiculed by the professionals, the AF modules, like the Visitronic were dismissed as unprofessional. Even the first digital systems by Sony were not appreciated as a serious tools for the professional photographer.
On average it takes ten years for the professional to adapt to the trends in the consumer domain.
Let us wait and see with what cameras the professional is taking pictures in 2020!
The fact that persons want to be engaged simultaneously in many information channels and can record and share every aspect of their own lives asks for multi-purpose and multi-function tools. The mobile phone is a good example: it functions as a phone, an email client, a camera, a video, an internet browser, even as a simple computer, a navigation tool you: name it.
The era of single purpose devices or tools is ending: a car is no longer a vehicle for transporting people, but a life style experience in movement, more like a mobile home or office or preferably both.
Cameras are following the same trends. To fit into the culture of permanent communication and sharing of images and experiences at all times, they need to shrink in size and offer all kinds of functions that span the whole gamut of visual communication options.
Camera-phones and compact cameras are selling by tens of millions and the newest generation of cameras offer still photography and video recording at a high level of quality. The new Canon 500D and Nikon D5000 point In this direction but are still too big and clumsy to be all time companions. No one now wants to hang a camera around the neck as it will hamper social activities. The whole concept of dedicating time to a single activity like taking pictures in the classical tradition of photography is becoming obsolete. The new Lumix GH1 is pointing in the right direction. It is easy to use, very compact, can create all kinds of images (still and moving), has sound recording and so on. It also delivers good quality imagery.
The trend then favors ever more compact cameras with an ever widening range of features for all kinds of images that can be shared real time to everybody without the need for post processing outside the camera.
Current DSLRs have in fact not changed in shape and functions since 1985. The Canon 1D and the Nikon D3 share most features and body shape with the classical film loading auto-all camera. like the Canon EOS 1 and the Nikon F5. In fact all DSLRs (like Pentax, Sony, Canon, Nikon) have functions and body shapes that are now at least thirty years old. Medium format cameras are no different: a digital Hasselblad is almost identical to an antique film loading Hasselblad in every respect except the technology of image capture.
This type of cameras is functionally at the end of the life cycle. A bigger sensor and even higher pixel density and more speed are possible, but will not enhance the inherent capabilities of these cameras. Evolutionary they are dinosaurs: they will presumably not disappear: their habitat is shielding them from extinction, but they are stuck in a dead corner of the photographic universe.
The changing environment of photography 3.0 (as noted at the beginning of this article) will favor new species like the Lumix GH1 and others. Photography will change too, but that is the basic idea of evolution.
Presumably we will see a Nikon D4 and even D5 and a Canon 1D MK IV and maybe a 0D, but the hegemony of the single lens reflex in its current state of the art is over.
One might object to this analysis by referring to the current group of professionals, all using the heavy and big DSLRs and the digital backs.
Remember then that the evolution of photography has always been initiated by innovations in amateur cameras. The original Leica was laughed at by professionals as a toy because of its small negatives, the Konica Autoreflex, the first with autoexposure was ridiculed by the professionals, the AF modules, like the Visitronic were dismissed as unprofessional. Even the first digital systems by Sony were not appreciated as a serious tools for the professional photographer.
On average it takes ten years for the professional to adapt to the trends in the consumer domain.
Let us wait and see with what cameras the professional is taking pictures in 2020!
|
Newspeak?
20/04/09 21:10
The Coupled Ramgefinder Camera is becoing a rare beast. Only the Leica M and the Zeiss Ikon ZM are regularly available. The Epson RD-1 in some version might be or might be not in production. Anyway you need not all fingers of one hand to count the CRF cameras. The ZM is a beautiful design, but flawed in its execution and production. Mike Johnston seems to love it (the ZM is the only filmloading camera on his top ten camera list), but presumably because he now dislikes the Leica culture. As an eloquent wordsmith Mike has hardly a peer and he knows how to convey the message.
One would expect that the Leica company should use as much knowledge and eloquence to promote their core products and the M certainly is at the core of the product scuderia of the Leica company. A long time ago, Japanese designer of the Canon RF camera hoped to once have as much wisdom about photography as was available to the Leitz designers.
The CRF is being in danger of being squeezed between EVIL and DSLR and there is really a need to set the record straight and show what the virtues and advantages are of the M line and its range of lenses.
The obvious place to look at is the Leica internet site. This is the window of Leica to the world and it is also the showcase of Leica how they see their own products and what they want to say to the world and persuade persons to buy into their culture and philosophy.
If Leica does not know how to express the advantages of the Leica M system, who else would do it?
On the Leica website there is a listing of the M lenses and a short comment about every lens. This should tell you what a lens does and what are the advantages in using one. I came across this jewel of incomprehension: it is about the Summarit 2.5/75mm.
Performance giving a new level of flexibility? Concentration on essential elements is an alternative for more serious photographers? A useful lens speed that opens up composition options?
In what world I am? You do not have to keep up with the Jones of this age, but Leica would be well advised to take a look at sites of the main camera companies to understand that their website is putting off prospective users in stead of attracting users.
The website is the front door and the signpost to the culture that the company wants to express.
The previous website was not good, but the current one is awful. And many users will associate the quality and content of the website with the quality of the products.
For a company that designs and manufactures the best 35mm lenses in the world, the description of the lenses on the website is a catastrophe.
One would expect that the Leica company should use as much knowledge and eloquence to promote their core products and the M certainly is at the core of the product scuderia of the Leica company. A long time ago, Japanese designer of the Canon RF camera hoped to once have as much wisdom about photography as was available to the Leitz designers.
The CRF is being in danger of being squeezed between EVIL and DSLR and there is really a need to set the record straight and show what the virtues and advantages are of the M line and its range of lenses.
The obvious place to look at is the Leica internet site. This is the window of Leica to the world and it is also the showcase of Leica how they see their own products and what they want to say to the world and persuade persons to buy into their culture and philosophy.
If Leica does not know how to express the advantages of the Leica M system, who else would do it?
On the Leica website there is a listing of the M lenses and a short comment about every lens. This should tell you what a lens does and what are the advantages in using one. I came across this jewel of incomprehension: it is about the Summarit 2.5/75mm.
The LEICA SUMMARIT-M 1:2.5/75 mm is a new "short telephoto" lens that is significantly smaller and lighter than Summicron lenses with the same focal length, but still offers the image quality that is the hallmark of Leica M lenses. Combined with the 35 mm Summarit-M, it makes up an ideal shooting outfit with a useful lens speed that opens up fascinating composition options for Leica M photographers.The new 75 mm Summarit-M replaces the portrait focal lengths of 90 -100 mm for digital use. Its exceptionally compact design and performance bring a new level of flexibility to rangefinder photography. Our concentration on the essential elements, including the features, is now an alternative for more serious photographers. All new Summarit-M lenses are supplied with metal covers and velour pouches, while high quality lens hoods are available as accessories.
Performance giving a new level of flexibility? Concentration on essential elements is an alternative for more serious photographers? A useful lens speed that opens up composition options?
In what world I am? You do not have to keep up with the Jones of this age, but Leica would be well advised to take a look at sites of the main camera companies to understand that their website is putting off prospective users in stead of attracting users.
The website is the front door and the signpost to the culture that the company wants to express.
The previous website was not good, but the current one is awful. And many users will associate the quality and content of the website with the quality of the products.
For a company that designs and manufactures the best 35mm lenses in the world, the description of the lenses on the website is a catastrophe.
Want it!?
05/04/09 20:34
The standard response to a new product has been: I want it!. Be it a Canon 5D II, a Canon 1 Ds Mk III, a Nikon D3X or D700 or D3 or you name it: as soon as the specs are out, the blogoshere and the interactive forums (or should it be fora?) start buzzing with expressions of buying lust. And the companies are feeding this lust by introducing every six months new products with more features. It does not matter that most of these features offer no added value for most photographic goals. The introduction of Live View and HD Movie capability might be interpreted as turning points in the culture and state of modern photography, They are not indispensable as are most of the more than 60 separate features that are now standard on most cameras. Do we need sixty features to master?
When using the new DSX film/developer combination I only needed a handful of parameters to master and could use equipment that in some cases is more than 20 years old. It functions optimally and I can use these new films in my fifty years old M3. Put a new lens in front of the M3, load it with modern film and you can get state of the art imagery, better than what you get with a costly DSLR that is obsolete in two years time.
I do want to give the impression that old is better, but I would ask for some reflections on the unrestrained buying pattern that has emerged in the last decade.
It is evident that the current crisis will fundamentally alter the way consumers will shop and look at new products. Saving more, buying less and even try to limit your spending habit to what you really need will be tomorrows pattern. Less reliance on brand names and more value for money would be another trend for the near future.
Leica made an interesting statement some time ago, when they noted that an investment in the M8 would be a long term affair. The camera was modular in its software and components and both could be gradually upgraded to stay in tune with current developments.
The introduction of the M8.2 and the possibility of replacing many parts of the M8 to get an M8.1 or even an M8.15 put this philosophy into practice. At least so it seems. But in fact the company created a state of confusion, by simultaneously dropping the price of the M8, and adding a hefty price tag for the replacements, but later reduced the prices to a more manageable level.
What could have been a forward looking and innovative concept, became a matter of confusion.
The matter is indeed complicated and a clear strategy is difficult to create and implement.
In the film-loading past. Leica could sell the same bodies over a longer period of time, leaving it to emulsion makers to improve the quality of the capture technology and selling lenses to an expanding group of users. The bodies kept their value and could be used for decades.
Now in the digital age, you cannot rely on a strategy to design and manufacture a camera body for a decade and just add new lenses to expand the market. Most buyers know that a product will be upgraded and become cheaper over a short period of time. At least this is the common knowledge.
In the new culture of restrained consumerism and less buying power, this philosophy may be loosing its appeal.
I am very happy with the performance of the TMax 100 film now on the market for two decades. And I am sure I will be satisfied with this performance for the next ten years. The same is true for the M8 sensor. The seven micron pixel size and the ten million pixels produce beautiful imagery and will do so over the next ten years.
We can be certain that in 2019 the world of digital capture will be totally different form today and presumably we have sensors that can handle 30+ million pixels and we have software that can manipulate these pixels with ease. But The M8 will still deliver the same performance as today and that will be enough. Just as Tri-X film was good thirty years ago and is good now.
Perhaps it is time to change the rule that more is better with the rule that enough is enough. Perhaps we change focus from specifications to meaningful results.
The car industry is showing the way by in fact introducing smaller cars that are more fuel efficient, and where the focus on performance has been redirected to lifestyle, culture and design.
Aa another example we may refer to the upcoming new version of the Operating System of the Mac computer: not more performance and more features, but more user convenience and more reliability.
Would it be a pipe dream to have a Leica M that is totally reliable under all conditions and over a life time, that is a marvel of user oriented functional design, and is so expert in its operation that you can connect it directly to the printer and get the results you had imagined during that elusive decisive moment of pressing the shutter release.
With the M5, Leica tried to break out of the mould in which the M development had been pressed for decades. That was a very brave act. The fact that it did not work, should not be the argument not to try it again.
When using the new DSX film/developer combination I only needed a handful of parameters to master and could use equipment that in some cases is more than 20 years old. It functions optimally and I can use these new films in my fifty years old M3. Put a new lens in front of the M3, load it with modern film and you can get state of the art imagery, better than what you get with a costly DSLR that is obsolete in two years time.
I do want to give the impression that old is better, but I would ask for some reflections on the unrestrained buying pattern that has emerged in the last decade.
It is evident that the current crisis will fundamentally alter the way consumers will shop and look at new products. Saving more, buying less and even try to limit your spending habit to what you really need will be tomorrows pattern. Less reliance on brand names and more value for money would be another trend for the near future.
Leica made an interesting statement some time ago, when they noted that an investment in the M8 would be a long term affair. The camera was modular in its software and components and both could be gradually upgraded to stay in tune with current developments.
The introduction of the M8.2 and the possibility of replacing many parts of the M8 to get an M8.1 or even an M8.15 put this philosophy into practice. At least so it seems. But in fact the company created a state of confusion, by simultaneously dropping the price of the M8, and adding a hefty price tag for the replacements, but later reduced the prices to a more manageable level.
What could have been a forward looking and innovative concept, became a matter of confusion.
The matter is indeed complicated and a clear strategy is difficult to create and implement.
In the film-loading past. Leica could sell the same bodies over a longer period of time, leaving it to emulsion makers to improve the quality of the capture technology and selling lenses to an expanding group of users. The bodies kept their value and could be used for decades.
Now in the digital age, you cannot rely on a strategy to design and manufacture a camera body for a decade and just add new lenses to expand the market. Most buyers know that a product will be upgraded and become cheaper over a short period of time. At least this is the common knowledge.
In the new culture of restrained consumerism and less buying power, this philosophy may be loosing its appeal.
I am very happy with the performance of the TMax 100 film now on the market for two decades. And I am sure I will be satisfied with this performance for the next ten years. The same is true for the M8 sensor. The seven micron pixel size and the ten million pixels produce beautiful imagery and will do so over the next ten years.
We can be certain that in 2019 the world of digital capture will be totally different form today and presumably we have sensors that can handle 30+ million pixels and we have software that can manipulate these pixels with ease. But The M8 will still deliver the same performance as today and that will be enough. Just as Tri-X film was good thirty years ago and is good now.
Perhaps it is time to change the rule that more is better with the rule that enough is enough. Perhaps we change focus from specifications to meaningful results.
The car industry is showing the way by in fact introducing smaller cars that are more fuel efficient, and where the focus on performance has been redirected to lifestyle, culture and design.
Aa another example we may refer to the upcoming new version of the Operating System of the Mac computer: not more performance and more features, but more user convenience and more reliability.
Would it be a pipe dream to have a Leica M that is totally reliable under all conditions and over a life time, that is a marvel of user oriented functional design, and is so expert in its operation that you can connect it directly to the printer and get the results you had imagined during that elusive decisive moment of pressing the shutter release.
With the M5, Leica tried to break out of the mould in which the M development had been pressed for decades. That was a very brave act. The fact that it did not work, should not be the argument not to try it again.
The great disruption
08/03/09 17:44
2008 is a true watershed year. The economy came to a halt and money disappeared in unbelievable amounts. Most experts assure us that this is a temporary disruption in our never-ending quest for more products, more change, more growth. They are wrong. We will have to settle for a lower level of prosperity and our habit of throwing away any product we do not want and buy a new one is definitely over.
If you look at the current explosion of digital cameras that are now on sale and the incessant mantra of magazines and web discussion groups for even more features and more power and more sensor sizes and amounts of pixels that demand more powerful computers with more potent programs and larger printers, we have to ask ourselves: is this the way to create great photography and preserve the wealth of nature? Do we really have to buy a new camera every two years?
In the golden era of mechanical cameras, you bought the camera you wanted and needed and used the camera for a decade or even longer. Some world famous photographers used their camera for twenty and more years. When the camera broke, they did something extremely unusual these days: they had it repaired!
The growth model we have developed in the last twenty years is unsustainable and the consumer attitudes that we had to adopt to accommodate ourselves to this culture are a thing of the past.
Perhaps we hold on to our Nikon D3x and Canon 5D Mr II and Canon G10 and Leica M8 for a longer period, stop with photoshopping our image files, print on A4 as a maximum size and even, my goodness, pick up our M7 and M6 and start using film in stead of buying more new cameras.
I am certainly not pleading for a buyer strike. In the old days, you bought an M3 or a Nikon F or Canon F1 for a lifetime of use, not for two years because then a new model will be announced and that is of course must be bought too.
I am pleading for a sensible approach of product selection: buy whet you really need for the foreseeable future and stick with this.Such an attitude will imply that less products are being sold and prices will go up.
In reality we have no choice: we cannot continue to act as if growth is the only option in life.
Perhaps we need to rediscover the art of balance and relaxation.
If you look at the current explosion of digital cameras that are now on sale and the incessant mantra of magazines and web discussion groups for even more features and more power and more sensor sizes and amounts of pixels that demand more powerful computers with more potent programs and larger printers, we have to ask ourselves: is this the way to create great photography and preserve the wealth of nature? Do we really have to buy a new camera every two years?
In the golden era of mechanical cameras, you bought the camera you wanted and needed and used the camera for a decade or even longer. Some world famous photographers used their camera for twenty and more years. When the camera broke, they did something extremely unusual these days: they had it repaired!
The growth model we have developed in the last twenty years is unsustainable and the consumer attitudes that we had to adopt to accommodate ourselves to this culture are a thing of the past.
Perhaps we hold on to our Nikon D3x and Canon 5D Mr II and Canon G10 and Leica M8 for a longer period, stop with photoshopping our image files, print on A4 as a maximum size and even, my goodness, pick up our M7 and M6 and start using film in stead of buying more new cameras.
I am certainly not pleading for a buyer strike. In the old days, you bought an M3 or a Nikon F or Canon F1 for a lifetime of use, not for two years because then a new model will be announced and that is of course must be bought too.
I am pleading for a sensible approach of product selection: buy whet you really need for the foreseeable future and stick with this.Such an attitude will imply that less products are being sold and prices will go up.
In reality we have no choice: we cannot continue to act as if growth is the only option in life.
Perhaps we need to rediscover the art of balance and relaxation.
New challenges
07/03/09 19:56
The current crisis, financial, economic and personal, will affect our lives for the next five years and it will take at least a decade before the world will be in a state of progress again. And we should settle for a lower level of prosperity than we are accustomed to. For many years we believed with the bankers of this world that we could generate something out of nothing. It is now clear that we cannot! European car manufactures can produce 18 million cars, but there is a market for 12 million. Which company will reduce its production? Saab seems sure to fail, as will many others. It is predicted that only four truck manufacturers will survive this crisis.
Basically we should applaud the current mess. A few steps back in demand and expectations will help the world as a whole to find a new road to harmony and humanity.
Rollei closed doors recently and I am sure more photographic companies will have to shut down. Pentax is an obvious candidate,and even Olympus is not immune.
In the car industry we see a major restructuring in the direction of small cars, electrical engines, and large scale capacity.
In the photographic industry we can discern the same trend: only a very large volume of products can offset the massive investments needed to keep up with the competition.
Saab is a good example: it sells only a 100.000 cars a year and has two product lines. Investment for a new model cannot be generated from the sales of the company and with two products the number of consumers that feel attracted to the marque is too small. The marque has cult status, but in todays world that is not enough to survive.
Leica is more like Saab and not like Volkswagen with millions of cars sold and a product range from Fox to Bentley and from sportscar Porsche to truck Scania and MAN. Can Leica survive?
There is a significant shift from the Leica core values to current photographic values.
Leica equals optical excellence, but this value has no longer a premium tag as software compensates increasingly and effectively the optical defects.
Leica equals mechanical excellence, but in modern manufacture precision is replaced by statistical analysis of distribution of defects.Automated machines can do better than humans but need vast sums of money.
Leica equals simplicity and a reduction of choices, but modern trends favor a multitude of options and choices.
Leica is a low volume high quality long product cycle manufacturer, but the future is for high volume high quality producers with short product cycles.
The new CEO of Leica, Rudolf Spiller worked for a long period for Zeiss in its photogrammetry and areal reconnaissance division. The business model for these products is different from the presumably very harsh competition in the digital photographic world in the near future. For the moment Leica is a most difficult position as the recent financial figures do indicate:
The Leica branded Panasonic products do not attract enough customers who want to pay a hefty price tag for a minimum of advantages.
The S2 camera is for Leica more an Formula 1 exercise (a Leistungs träger) and will presumably generate more excitement than profits.
The M community waits for the M9 and when this will be announced it will generate a disproportionate amount of interest and discussions, but will not send the buyers in droves to the shop. Stripped from emotion and nostalgia, it is and will be a niche product. I will buy the M9 as a blind date, but I am an aberration I have to confess.
The main focus of current and future buyers in the high-end photographic market is fixed on only one thing: a dslr with a 35mm sized sensor and lots of features and a huge system of lenses and accessories. This is the terrain where the announced R10 will have to do battle. If the Leica company wants to survive, the R10 will be the lifeline. That puts a lot of pressure on the design team.
If the R10 is just a product comparable to the main dslr competition, it will loose on momentum if not on excellence. The Sony 900 will not succeed versus the Nikon D3x and the Canon models.
If the R10 is just different, it will share the fate of the R8/9, a product that was just different but lacked charisma.
It is not enough to have a very well designed product with a brilliant concept like the Olympus E1 and E3: this is not what the buyers want!
Leica has not the best track record for fathoming the deep wishes of its customers. The new SX and Nx lenses for the M are admirable products, but we may legitimately ask if this is what the mainstream M user is looking for.
Challenging times indeed for the mew CEO.
Basically we should applaud the current mess. A few steps back in demand and expectations will help the world as a whole to find a new road to harmony and humanity.
Rollei closed doors recently and I am sure more photographic companies will have to shut down. Pentax is an obvious candidate,and even Olympus is not immune.
In the car industry we see a major restructuring in the direction of small cars, electrical engines, and large scale capacity.
In the photographic industry we can discern the same trend: only a very large volume of products can offset the massive investments needed to keep up with the competition.
Saab is a good example: it sells only a 100.000 cars a year and has two product lines. Investment for a new model cannot be generated from the sales of the company and with two products the number of consumers that feel attracted to the marque is too small. The marque has cult status, but in todays world that is not enough to survive.
Leica is more like Saab and not like Volkswagen with millions of cars sold and a product range from Fox to Bentley and from sportscar Porsche to truck Scania and MAN. Can Leica survive?
There is a significant shift from the Leica core values to current photographic values.
Leica equals optical excellence, but this value has no longer a premium tag as software compensates increasingly and effectively the optical defects.
Leica equals mechanical excellence, but in modern manufacture precision is replaced by statistical analysis of distribution of defects.Automated machines can do better than humans but need vast sums of money.
Leica equals simplicity and a reduction of choices, but modern trends favor a multitude of options and choices.
Leica is a low volume high quality long product cycle manufacturer, but the future is for high volume high quality producers with short product cycles.
The new CEO of Leica, Rudolf Spiller worked for a long period for Zeiss in its photogrammetry and areal reconnaissance division. The business model for these products is different from the presumably very harsh competition in the digital photographic world in the near future. For the moment Leica is a most difficult position as the recent financial figures do indicate:
The Leica branded Panasonic products do not attract enough customers who want to pay a hefty price tag for a minimum of advantages.
The S2 camera is for Leica more an Formula 1 exercise (a Leistungs träger) and will presumably generate more excitement than profits.
The M community waits for the M9 and when this will be announced it will generate a disproportionate amount of interest and discussions, but will not send the buyers in droves to the shop. Stripped from emotion and nostalgia, it is and will be a niche product. I will buy the M9 as a blind date, but I am an aberration I have to confess.
The main focus of current and future buyers in the high-end photographic market is fixed on only one thing: a dslr with a 35mm sized sensor and lots of features and a huge system of lenses and accessories. This is the terrain where the announced R10 will have to do battle. If the Leica company wants to survive, the R10 will be the lifeline. That puts a lot of pressure on the design team.
If the R10 is just a product comparable to the main dslr competition, it will loose on momentum if not on excellence. The Sony 900 will not succeed versus the Nikon D3x and the Canon models.
If the R10 is just different, it will share the fate of the R8/9, a product that was just different but lacked charisma.
It is not enough to have a very well designed product with a brilliant concept like the Olympus E1 and E3: this is not what the buyers want!
Leica has not the best track record for fathoming the deep wishes of its customers. The new SX and Nx lenses for the M are admirable products, but we may legitimately ask if this is what the mainstream M user is looking for.
Challenging times indeed for the mew CEO.
testing software
28/01/09 20:24
A camera body, certainly a mechanical one with only a few controls for manipulation, takes a few months to a year to test it thoroughly.
A current digital camera with hundreds of combinations would take at least the same amount of time to test. But you will find comments (I would not dare to say that is it is a test in the classical sense) on cameras after a day of handling and some lab checks.
A lens is relatively simple to test, as there are only a handful of characteristics to analyze, but even in this case a really meaningful test would take several months.
A film with several developers would take on average several weeks to test, given the use of a densitometer.
A software program can take any time period from a month to a year to test. Most postprocessing software or developing software as it is sometimes called, are very complex programs with hundreds if not thousands of combinations.
I am very surprised that one sees everywhere reports that make strong assessments about the quality or performance of a software program, like Photoshop or Lightroom or Aperture.
I am working in the world of software and I know that testing a piece of software is a very specialized and disciplined activity. You need test protocols, controlled test cases and a very detailed suite of actions that can be executed several times without introducing new parameters.
I am using the following post processing software:
My personal favorites are Aperture, PWP and Silverfast. Why?
I use only a very small selection of tools in these programs. I load the Raw file, do a minimal of manipulations on the gradation curve and unsharp actions (identical to what you can do in the classical darkroom), convert to BW and export as TIFF. These programs support my workflow very well and produce excellent TIFF files for printing. Here I use the Epson 3800 with several types of Hahnemuehle papers.
The number of steps you have to take and the many options per step are mind boggling.
I have found by trial and error a series of settings that bring me the results I want and am pleased with.
This result however cannot qualify as a test. A true test would imply that you define at first what the results are that you expect and what manipulations can alter the result and how, given all the parameters that can influence the result. Preferably these expected results should be defined in quantifiable units. I am only using a few possible controls and assess the result visually. A report by me about all these programs and the achievements would have very limited value. That is why you will not read on my website about tests of software. A truly valuable test would demand such an amount of preparation and execution that is impossible to dedicate to.
What you can find on all tests in the internet is a very simple comparison of an image file, processed by a program with a set of parameters selected and fixed. What we do not know and that would be the Big Question, is if we can be certain that the selected parameters and options really do represent the best the program can do given the characteristics of the image file. We simply do not!
Are we really sure that the selected options are the optimum and that the sequence of actions is the best solution?
Frankly speaking we do not know!
So-called tests are then simply snapshots of what one operator can do given limited experience with all options and parameters and the interactions involved.
In mountain biking or car racing or even photography the rule holds that an experienced user with moderate equipment can achieve more that an unexperienced user with high end equipment.
The situation with the post-processing software is identical: if you know how a program behaves you can get better results than when you randomly select a few features.
A very basic point may illustrate this: every program has the sharpness control where you have to select radius and amount. But every program gives different results on the same picture.
How do you value this conclusion? Presumably I can get identical results with different settings. Hw do I conduct a test with controlled parameters that expose the true differences.
I would say this is a very hard act to execute.
I have not read any software test ( in the image file processing software) where these aspects are addressed in a satisfying way.
My current conclusion is that all tests of software programs lack the qualification of "test" and are at best informed reports about personal experience and settings. Quite valuable but not good enough to support the selection of a program as good or best.
A current digital camera with hundreds of combinations would take at least the same amount of time to test. But you will find comments (I would not dare to say that is it is a test in the classical sense) on cameras after a day of handling and some lab checks.
A lens is relatively simple to test, as there are only a handful of characteristics to analyze, but even in this case a really meaningful test would take several months.
A film with several developers would take on average several weeks to test, given the use of a densitometer.
A software program can take any time period from a month to a year to test. Most postprocessing software or developing software as it is sometimes called, are very complex programs with hundreds if not thousands of combinations.
I am very surprised that one sees everywhere reports that make strong assessments about the quality or performance of a software program, like Photoshop or Lightroom or Aperture.
I am working in the world of software and I know that testing a piece of software is a very specialized and disciplined activity. You need test protocols, controlled test cases and a very detailed suite of actions that can be executed several times without introducing new parameters.
I am using the following post processing software:
- Picture Window Pro,
- Lightroom
- Bibble
- Photoshop CS2 and ~Elements both with Nik Efex and Sharpener
- Capture One
- Aperture with Nik Efex and Sharpener
- Light Zone
- Silverfast DCpro
- Sylkipix
- some more
My personal favorites are Aperture, PWP and Silverfast. Why?
I use only a very small selection of tools in these programs. I load the Raw file, do a minimal of manipulations on the gradation curve and unsharp actions (identical to what you can do in the classical darkroom), convert to BW and export as TIFF. These programs support my workflow very well and produce excellent TIFF files for printing. Here I use the Epson 3800 with several types of Hahnemuehle papers.
The number of steps you have to take and the many options per step are mind boggling.
I have found by trial and error a series of settings that bring me the results I want and am pleased with.
This result however cannot qualify as a test. A true test would imply that you define at first what the results are that you expect and what manipulations can alter the result and how, given all the parameters that can influence the result. Preferably these expected results should be defined in quantifiable units. I am only using a few possible controls and assess the result visually. A report by me about all these programs and the achievements would have very limited value. That is why you will not read on my website about tests of software. A truly valuable test would demand such an amount of preparation and execution that is impossible to dedicate to.
What you can find on all tests in the internet is a very simple comparison of an image file, processed by a program with a set of parameters selected and fixed. What we do not know and that would be the Big Question, is if we can be certain that the selected parameters and options really do represent the best the program can do given the characteristics of the image file. We simply do not!
Are we really sure that the selected options are the optimum and that the sequence of actions is the best solution?
Frankly speaking we do not know!
So-called tests are then simply snapshots of what one operator can do given limited experience with all options and parameters and the interactions involved.
In mountain biking or car racing or even photography the rule holds that an experienced user with moderate equipment can achieve more that an unexperienced user with high end equipment.
The situation with the post-processing software is identical: if you know how a program behaves you can get better results than when you randomly select a few features.
A very basic point may illustrate this: every program has the sharpness control where you have to select radius and amount. But every program gives different results on the same picture.
How do you value this conclusion? Presumably I can get identical results with different settings. Hw do I conduct a test with controlled parameters that expose the true differences.
I would say this is a very hard act to execute.
I have not read any software test ( in the image file processing software) where these aspects are addressed in a satisfying way.
My current conclusion is that all tests of software programs lack the qualification of "test" and are at best informed reports about personal experience and settings. Quite valuable but not good enough to support the selection of a program as good or best.
What is new?
22/12/08 20:09
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!
Photographic greed
24/11/08 22:43
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Slow death of the darkroom?
12/08/08 16:42
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.