27 September 2009
september 2009
27/09/09 17:22
Change in the air.
Reflecting on events in the photographic world asks for a certain detachment that is dangerous in a world that is occupied with the biggest challenges ever encountered since the Black Plague in medieval Europe that wiped out 40% of the population. For a long period in time photography offered a penetrating gaze into the fabric of society and recorded the main moments in history and sometimes even influenced the course of history. In fact the photographic image and the world at large were intimately connected. It is almost a truism to state that Leica photographs were instrumental in this connection. Still photographs and moving pictures were the media to use when statements about the world were required or intended. This culture is now the exclusive domain of the 8mm and 16mm movies and the digital video film movie makers.
Photography, at least in its digital incarnation, is now completely submerged in the consumer electronics industry that exhibits precisely those characteristics that identify some of the major challenges in todays world. Electronic products generate an enormous amount of waste, which is a heavy attack on the environment. The products themselves with ever expanding features and possibilities signify the global tendency for greed and limitless consumption.
There are a few responsible companies who react to the demand for green production and try to define products with a better fit for the future.
Structural changes are required and this demand implies too that it is not good enough to extrapolate past achievements into the future.
The car industry seems to capture the moment and is now re-inventing itself and the concept of the automobile. It may take twenty years or more to see the effects but there is clearly evidence of much needed change.
Within the photographic world the need for fundamental changes may be recognized, but is not given much thought. Here we see a fierce fight for consumer attention and market share. Canon and Nikon together hold 80% and Sony is third with 13%. Pentax and Olympus share a meagre 5% of the market. Given these figures and the requirements for substantial investment to create a profile that consumers can appreciate and want to buy, it is quite logic that Leica has given up on mainstream dslr models and continues to cultivate niche products. The danger of a niche is its tendency to parochialism that can be seen on many levels. The introduction of new Leica products (M9, X1, S2) has been hailed by the Leica community as an event of great significance, but went totally unnoticed in the world at large. Not long ago, the Leica community was aware of the vulnerability of the Leica company and its products and shared a common drive to support the company sometimes against one’s better judgment. Persons who bought M8 models by the thousands, knowing the inadequacies and sharing workarounds to improve the quality of the images did so with a sense of idealism and stubborn belief in the inherent quality of the Leica image. They may feel let down by the company that has shown a surprising lack of empathy for the predicament of M8 buyers. The Leica community has always been a friendly group of people, often focused exclusively on the history of the marque, and they shared information freely, they engaged in sometimes intense discussions, but always meant to deepen the knowledge about the Leica way in general and the Leica qualities in particular. The fact that recently someone in this community reacted to a valid but frank question, not with a rational argument or explanation but with a threat of a law suit, is a sign of weakness, but also of a closing of a period where exchange of information was valued more than the profiling of one’s personality.
The Leica X1 is an attempt to revive the original Leica camera and its style of photography. Leica tried this before with the Leica Null Series, an almost exact copy of the original. The camera met with some interest, but was not a resounding success to say the least. The modern and digital equivalent is the X1 and it is logical that a fixed lens is employed. The sensor behind the lens is the same one employed in the Nikon D300 and originates from Sony. The lens design is adapted to the sensor and totally new, not a derivative of the Elmarit-M 2.8/24mm. The camera is designed in Solms, but many components are of Japanese origin. It is natural to assume that Fuji could be involved in this product as the company is also actively involved in the S2. Culturally and philosophically Fuji fits more into the Leica world than that gigant of the electronics industry Panasonic. Fuji has a very long and distinguished history in pure photography which it shares with Leica.
The Leica M9 is an M7 with a modern shutter and a digital capture system. It abounds with Leica CRF DNA. Leica aficionadas understandably rave about the camera because of the larger sensor surface now with ‘classical Barnack’ dimensions. The M8 offered excellent imagery, but my comparisons indicated that it was not in the position to challenge the reference cameras at print sizes above A4. This is not a breathtaking insight as the film-loading Leica cameras could compete favorably with medium format camera systems up to 20x30cm, perhaps even to 30x40cm, but lost impact above that size. Leica users hardly printed bigger than that. And in this sense the M8 is still an excellent camera with high quality imagery at the printing stage. Nowadays the computer screen is the preferred viewing mechanism and in this context the M8 starts to gasp for breath. It is a matter of opinion how valid this method of viewing is for working with photographic prints, but it is common usage. Is the art of printing dying too?
The M9 is capable of challenging the 20+ Mp cameras as my comparison with the Nikon D3x shows. A challenge is however not equivalent to a win and indeed the Nikon still has a visible edge. Again the question may be asked how valid this fact is in the final printing stage. There is a certain artificiality in the quest for the best image quality. In the days of film, the best quality you can get is with an 8x10 inch studio camera. That did not stop 35mm users to be happy with their camera systems and get the results they wanted. The same analogy holds in the digital world. For the best quality you need to employ the digital backs with 60 Mp sensors. The S2 may offer impressive quality, but the performance examples I have seen are not superior to the examples from the digital back manufacturers. Relativism is required, even when living in a niche.
Like the M7 in the AgX world, the M9 is the ultimate CRF camera and one may wonder what will be the next step. A concept like the Contax G2 comes in mind, but this would require a major change in DNA.
The new Leica products (X, M and S) are modern interpretations of classical ideals, not new ideas for a rapidly changing photographic environment. Leica needs to convince a wider audience that these ideals are worth pursuing.
Where Leica has an edge that they do not promote enough, is the optical quality. The use of digital capture systems with sensor depths of zero depth is really demanding for the optical performance, but also on the methods of representation.
The use of the MTF graphs is now common place. The technique of generating MTF graphs is based on a flat surface at infinity where the contrast is measured or calculated for a series of spatial frequencies ranging from five to 40 linepairs/mm. In AgX days that was fine, as the emulsion thickness of about 0.15mm could provide a depth of focus the sensor surface does not have.
For some time I have been looking at MTF graphs that represent spatial frequencies from 25 to 100 linepairs/mm. This range is more relevant for current pixel sizes of 5 to 6 micron that allow for spatial resolutions around 70 linepairs/mm. As with film emulsions we need to analyze the behavior of lens/sensor combinations in the region of the cut-off frequencies and beyond. But we also need to look at the behavior in the third dimension, the depth of the object. Normally we assume that there is one plane of best focus where lens quality is at its best, falling off in both directions before and after the plane of best focus. Depth of field is assumed to take care of this falling off in performance which is not harmonious and has given rise to the cult of boke(h). The assumption of a flat surface for the projection of the image formed by the lens, is just that: an assumption. In reality we do not have a flat surface but two curved surfaces, corresponding with the two focal points of an optical system, the sagittal and the tangential focus. The designer manipulates these two surfaces to produce a surface that is as flat as possible, but still consists of these two ‘planes’. When analyzing the lens behavior in the region of 100 lp/mm, we get a much better understanding of the true characteristics of the lens. As example: at image height of 10mm a modern Leica lens exhibits a contrast of 10% at 100 lp/mm on the standard flat surface, but when doing a through focus MTF, we may find a position where the same lens at the same point now delivers that same 100lp/mm with a contrast of above 50%. This is very relevant for real picture taking where the objects that we photograph have depth and volume.
I will expand on this topic in a subsequent article, but I would say that the classical and current methods of analyzing lens performance need to be upgraded to take account of the inherent characteristics of the 20+ Mp sensors now to be found in high grade cameras. What is needed is a complex representation of the behavior of a lens in the range of 50 to 100 lp/mm at the sagittal and tangential planes at several focus locations. The classical one dimensional MTF with lines from 5 to 40 lp/mm is inadequate as an instrument for image assessment. The visual comparison of a picture projected on a computer screen is not a good alternative as it is too limited and too much dependent on the person doing the comparison.
In short a new paradigm for testing lenses is needed to do full justice to the performance and characteristics of the M9 camera. And as a lemma to this statement I would also ask for a new approach in lens design more in tune with modern sensor capabilities.
Indeed: change is in the air and the future will be very exciting.
Reflecting on events in the photographic world asks for a certain detachment that is dangerous in a world that is occupied with the biggest challenges ever encountered since the Black Plague in medieval Europe that wiped out 40% of the population. For a long period in time photography offered a penetrating gaze into the fabric of society and recorded the main moments in history and sometimes even influenced the course of history. In fact the photographic image and the world at large were intimately connected. It is almost a truism to state that Leica photographs were instrumental in this connection. Still photographs and moving pictures were the media to use when statements about the world were required or intended. This culture is now the exclusive domain of the 8mm and 16mm movies and the digital video film movie makers.
Photography, at least in its digital incarnation, is now completely submerged in the consumer electronics industry that exhibits precisely those characteristics that identify some of the major challenges in todays world. Electronic products generate an enormous amount of waste, which is a heavy attack on the environment. The products themselves with ever expanding features and possibilities signify the global tendency for greed and limitless consumption.
There are a few responsible companies who react to the demand for green production and try to define products with a better fit for the future.
Structural changes are required and this demand implies too that it is not good enough to extrapolate past achievements into the future.
The car industry seems to capture the moment and is now re-inventing itself and the concept of the automobile. It may take twenty years or more to see the effects but there is clearly evidence of much needed change.
Within the photographic world the need for fundamental changes may be recognized, but is not given much thought. Here we see a fierce fight for consumer attention and market share. Canon and Nikon together hold 80% and Sony is third with 13%. Pentax and Olympus share a meagre 5% of the market. Given these figures and the requirements for substantial investment to create a profile that consumers can appreciate and want to buy, it is quite logic that Leica has given up on mainstream dslr models and continues to cultivate niche products. The danger of a niche is its tendency to parochialism that can be seen on many levels. The introduction of new Leica products (M9, X1, S2) has been hailed by the Leica community as an event of great significance, but went totally unnoticed in the world at large. Not long ago, the Leica community was aware of the vulnerability of the Leica company and its products and shared a common drive to support the company sometimes against one’s better judgment. Persons who bought M8 models by the thousands, knowing the inadequacies and sharing workarounds to improve the quality of the images did so with a sense of idealism and stubborn belief in the inherent quality of the Leica image. They may feel let down by the company that has shown a surprising lack of empathy for the predicament of M8 buyers. The Leica community has always been a friendly group of people, often focused exclusively on the history of the marque, and they shared information freely, they engaged in sometimes intense discussions, but always meant to deepen the knowledge about the Leica way in general and the Leica qualities in particular. The fact that recently someone in this community reacted to a valid but frank question, not with a rational argument or explanation but with a threat of a law suit, is a sign of weakness, but also of a closing of a period where exchange of information was valued more than the profiling of one’s personality.
The Leica X1 is an attempt to revive the original Leica camera and its style of photography. Leica tried this before with the Leica Null Series, an almost exact copy of the original. The camera met with some interest, but was not a resounding success to say the least. The modern and digital equivalent is the X1 and it is logical that a fixed lens is employed. The sensor behind the lens is the same one employed in the Nikon D300 and originates from Sony. The lens design is adapted to the sensor and totally new, not a derivative of the Elmarit-M 2.8/24mm. The camera is designed in Solms, but many components are of Japanese origin. It is natural to assume that Fuji could be involved in this product as the company is also actively involved in the S2. Culturally and philosophically Fuji fits more into the Leica world than that gigant of the electronics industry Panasonic. Fuji has a very long and distinguished history in pure photography which it shares with Leica.
The Leica M9 is an M7 with a modern shutter and a digital capture system. It abounds with Leica CRF DNA. Leica aficionadas understandably rave about the camera because of the larger sensor surface now with ‘classical Barnack’ dimensions. The M8 offered excellent imagery, but my comparisons indicated that it was not in the position to challenge the reference cameras at print sizes above A4. This is not a breathtaking insight as the film-loading Leica cameras could compete favorably with medium format camera systems up to 20x30cm, perhaps even to 30x40cm, but lost impact above that size. Leica users hardly printed bigger than that. And in this sense the M8 is still an excellent camera with high quality imagery at the printing stage. Nowadays the computer screen is the preferred viewing mechanism and in this context the M8 starts to gasp for breath. It is a matter of opinion how valid this method of viewing is for working with photographic prints, but it is common usage. Is the art of printing dying too?
The M9 is capable of challenging the 20+ Mp cameras as my comparison with the Nikon D3x shows. A challenge is however not equivalent to a win and indeed the Nikon still has a visible edge. Again the question may be asked how valid this fact is in the final printing stage. There is a certain artificiality in the quest for the best image quality. In the days of film, the best quality you can get is with an 8x10 inch studio camera. That did not stop 35mm users to be happy with their camera systems and get the results they wanted. The same analogy holds in the digital world. For the best quality you need to employ the digital backs with 60 Mp sensors. The S2 may offer impressive quality, but the performance examples I have seen are not superior to the examples from the digital back manufacturers. Relativism is required, even when living in a niche.
Like the M7 in the AgX world, the M9 is the ultimate CRF camera and one may wonder what will be the next step. A concept like the Contax G2 comes in mind, but this would require a major change in DNA.
The new Leica products (X, M and S) are modern interpretations of classical ideals, not new ideas for a rapidly changing photographic environment. Leica needs to convince a wider audience that these ideals are worth pursuing.
Where Leica has an edge that they do not promote enough, is the optical quality. The use of digital capture systems with sensor depths of zero depth is really demanding for the optical performance, but also on the methods of representation.
The use of the MTF graphs is now common place. The technique of generating MTF graphs is based on a flat surface at infinity where the contrast is measured or calculated for a series of spatial frequencies ranging from five to 40 linepairs/mm. In AgX days that was fine, as the emulsion thickness of about 0.15mm could provide a depth of focus the sensor surface does not have.
For some time I have been looking at MTF graphs that represent spatial frequencies from 25 to 100 linepairs/mm. This range is more relevant for current pixel sizes of 5 to 6 micron that allow for spatial resolutions around 70 linepairs/mm. As with film emulsions we need to analyze the behavior of lens/sensor combinations in the region of the cut-off frequencies and beyond. But we also need to look at the behavior in the third dimension, the depth of the object. Normally we assume that there is one plane of best focus where lens quality is at its best, falling off in both directions before and after the plane of best focus. Depth of field is assumed to take care of this falling off in performance which is not harmonious and has given rise to the cult of boke(h). The assumption of a flat surface for the projection of the image formed by the lens, is just that: an assumption. In reality we do not have a flat surface but two curved surfaces, corresponding with the two focal points of an optical system, the sagittal and the tangential focus. The designer manipulates these two surfaces to produce a surface that is as flat as possible, but still consists of these two ‘planes’. When analyzing the lens behavior in the region of 100 lp/mm, we get a much better understanding of the true characteristics of the lens. As example: at image height of 10mm a modern Leica lens exhibits a contrast of 10% at 100 lp/mm on the standard flat surface, but when doing a through focus MTF, we may find a position where the same lens at the same point now delivers that same 100lp/mm with a contrast of above 50%. This is very relevant for real picture taking where the objects that we photograph have depth and volume.
I will expand on this topic in a subsequent article, but I would say that the classical and current methods of analyzing lens performance need to be upgraded to take account of the inherent characteristics of the 20+ Mp sensors now to be found in high grade cameras. What is needed is a complex representation of the behavior of a lens in the range of 50 to 100 lp/mm at the sagittal and tangential planes at several focus locations. The classical one dimensional MTF with lines from 5 to 40 lp/mm is inadequate as an instrument for image assessment. The visual comparison of a picture projected on a computer screen is not a good alternative as it is too limited and too much dependent on the person doing the comparison.
In short a new paradigm for testing lenses is needed to do full justice to the performance and characteristics of the M9 camera. And as a lemma to this statement I would also ask for a new approach in lens design more in tune with modern sensor capabilities.
Indeed: change is in the air and the future will be very exciting.