new directions
21/02/10 20:01
As a start some figures: The Leica Pocket Guide has been downloaded 12.000 times in two weeks, the leica lens compendium pdf version is now at a count of 55.000, with 5000 downloads in the last week.
An analysis of the image quality of the Zeiss Planat 1.4/85 on the Canon 5D II showed a strange behavior. The explanation proved to be very complex, involving the working and calibration of the AF mechanism, the effect of distance dependent focus shift, the possible influence of the EPROM in the lens in combination with the processing of the camera. On top of the classical optical qualities of a lens, we now have a plethora of measurements, generated by the several lens testing programs available over the internet and the ever increasing integration of lens parameters with the camera operation (AF as example), but also programs in the camera that adjust for known optical defects. Two competing trends we see: the analysis programs deliver an enormous amount of information, based on their own interpretation of optical performance of the lens and the camera/lens manufacturers use complex software algorithms (in lens and camera) to adjust and adapt the performance of the optical system and the perception of the resulting image. The upshot is a new level of insecurity: we do not know what we measure and we do not know how to explain what we assume we measure. This state of affairs is complicated by the tight coupling of software with the hardware and the opacity of the inner workings of the camera/lens/program interaction. All analysis programs only look at the end result of the imaging chain (the image file in Raw or JPG format), disregarding the working of the chain itself and there is no option for separating the constituent components of the chain. And when we need to interpret the end result we have lists of data and a stream of graphs to help us make sense of the data. So we have on the one hand many data delivered by quite sensitive equipment and on the other hand a lack of knowledge about how to interpret the data in a sensible way. The more we measure, the less we seem to know.
It is fair to assume that the final result is all we need to consider, but if we want to explain what we see and we claim to deliver intelligent assessments and comparisons of what we perceive, we need more than just wild guesses. This knowledge is simply lacking as no camera/lens manufacturer is telling you what goes on inside the black box.
This is the reason why I still test lenses in the classical way: with film and with MTF equipment. That is the only method to study the prime and pure characteristics of a lens and to make meaningful comparisons.
If you on the other hand want and can only test the full imaging chain in the digital workflow, you are at a loss as far as the lens qualities are concerned. The usual approach nowadays is to use a standard test chart that can be quantitatively evaluated by an analysis program and to produce some charts and figures that show differences in values. How meaningful these differences are is not discussed, nor is the fact how representative the results are. The performance of a lens is distance dependent, but most test situations assume only one distance form camera to target and in many cases this distance is not the most representative for the lens in question.
More data produce more insecurity and more information noise. A nice modern dilemma it surely is.
Long ago I wrote about the death of classical photography. That is the photography where the photographer uses film to capture a scene or moment that is recorded in a constellation of silver salts and carefully printed in the darkroom with the result a crafted unique copy of an image for use in a book or magazine or for art exhibition purposes. Modern digital photography is rapidly becoming a totally different medium. The single photograph is no longer the goal, but photography is converging to a mixed media show, where sound, still images, and moving images (video) are becoming combined to convey the message. As a sign of the times we may refer to the recent sale of a big portion of the photographs by Magnum to collect money for expanded photoreportage work by the members.Go to Magnum in Motion to see the modern multimedial digital show of Magnum members. A modern photographer does no longer shoot pictures, you need to develop yourself to an all-round artist, commanding visual and audio equipment or you become a journalist. Modern cameras support the multimedial approach: see the new Canon, NIkon, Panasonic and Olympus cameras. If magnum gets the message, why not the the rest of us?
Lens testing
An analysis of the image quality of the Zeiss Planat 1.4/85 on the Canon 5D II showed a strange behavior. The explanation proved to be very complex, involving the working and calibration of the AF mechanism, the effect of distance dependent focus shift, the possible influence of the EPROM in the lens in combination with the processing of the camera. On top of the classical optical qualities of a lens, we now have a plethora of measurements, generated by the several lens testing programs available over the internet and the ever increasing integration of lens parameters with the camera operation (AF as example), but also programs in the camera that adjust for known optical defects. Two competing trends we see: the analysis programs deliver an enormous amount of information, based on their own interpretation of optical performance of the lens and the camera/lens manufacturers use complex software algorithms (in lens and camera) to adjust and adapt the performance of the optical system and the perception of the resulting image. The upshot is a new level of insecurity: we do not know what we measure and we do not know how to explain what we assume we measure. This state of affairs is complicated by the tight coupling of software with the hardware and the opacity of the inner workings of the camera/lens/program interaction. All analysis programs only look at the end result of the imaging chain (the image file in Raw or JPG format), disregarding the working of the chain itself and there is no option for separating the constituent components of the chain. And when we need to interpret the end result we have lists of data and a stream of graphs to help us make sense of the data. So we have on the one hand many data delivered by quite sensitive equipment and on the other hand a lack of knowledge about how to interpret the data in a sensible way. The more we measure, the less we seem to know.
It is fair to assume that the final result is all we need to consider, but if we want to explain what we see and we claim to deliver intelligent assessments and comparisons of what we perceive, we need more than just wild guesses. This knowledge is simply lacking as no camera/lens manufacturer is telling you what goes on inside the black box.
This is the reason why I still test lenses in the classical way: with film and with MTF equipment. That is the only method to study the prime and pure characteristics of a lens and to make meaningful comparisons.
If you on the other hand want and can only test the full imaging chain in the digital workflow, you are at a loss as far as the lens qualities are concerned. The usual approach nowadays is to use a standard test chart that can be quantitatively evaluated by an analysis program and to produce some charts and figures that show differences in values. How meaningful these differences are is not discussed, nor is the fact how representative the results are. The performance of a lens is distance dependent, but most test situations assume only one distance form camera to target and in many cases this distance is not the most representative for the lens in question.
More data produce more insecurity and more information noise. A nice modern dilemma it surely is.
Modern photography.
Long ago I wrote about the death of classical photography. That is the photography where the photographer uses film to capture a scene or moment that is recorded in a constellation of silver salts and carefully printed in the darkroom with the result a crafted unique copy of an image for use in a book or magazine or for art exhibition purposes. Modern digital photography is rapidly becoming a totally different medium. The single photograph is no longer the goal, but photography is converging to a mixed media show, where sound, still images, and moving images (video) are becoming combined to convey the message. As a sign of the times we may refer to the recent sale of a big portion of the photographs by Magnum to collect money for expanded photoreportage work by the members.Go to Magnum in Motion to see the modern multimedial digital show of Magnum members. A modern photographer does no longer shoot pictures, you need to develop yourself to an all-round artist, commanding visual and audio equipment or you become a journalist. Modern cameras support the multimedial approach: see the new Canon, NIkon, Panasonic and Olympus cameras. If magnum gets the message, why not the the rest of us?
Leica Pocket Guide
03/02/10 22:32
On the download page I have posted a nice little pocket guide. Have a look. The booklet is a PDF file and the format is such that it can be printed by Lulu, a POD company.
Choices
31/01/10 15:39
There is a remarkable difference between the approach by Apple for designing new products and the classical approach as seen by the numerous advices on the internet about how to proceed when designing new products. The Apple approach is to study the people’s behavior about a certain domain, be it the way one uses computers, music gadgets or mobile phones or recently internet content. The iPad is going to change the way people read books and magazines and how publishers distribute content, with the possible consequence that large printing presses will become obsolete, just like photofinishing has been killed by on line photobooks and home printing devices.
The Apple approach then concentrates on the HOW to do things. The pipedreaming on the internet about the development of equipment concentrates on the WHAT to have things. This is a totally misguided approach. It might be useful to get insights into the current ideas about what to like and dislike about products, but it would be wrong to assume that these ideas should be transformed into new products. The collective thinking may be good for very small incremental changes, but not for major innovations.
Remember the birth of the 35mm camera, designed by Barnack. He did not start with an existing product, but thought long and hard about the way people made photographs (the HOW question). Only after he concluded that a different way of taking pictures was needed, he started to design the new camera, helped by his work on the exposure device for the film camera developed by Mechau.
If we need a new M-camera or more general a new dCRF camera, it would be helpful to think first about how the way we take and use pictures in the digital age and then to device a product that supports this way of doing things. There are numerous studies now on the market by photographer-philosophers and photo-analysts who are developing new approaches to the production, distribution and consumption of digital images. Increasingly the word ‘photography’ is being replaced by ‘digital imaging’ and it may be a short time before we loose the adjective ‘digital’ and talk about images and image files. The camera, once the major part in the imaging chain, is rapidly becoming one of many equally important links in the imaging process. This change has happened with the computer, once a very important instrument, now a ubiquitous tool.
Starting from an existing product and projecting wishes into the future is certainly a pleasant way of killing time, but it is totally unproductive when you really want to chart the future. Then you need to think about how you want to take and use pictures in the next decade. Only when you know the future environment and the future goals, then you can design the products that support or even foster this new way of taking pictures.
There is not one company in the photographic industry that is really thinking of new products. The current dSLR and even the Micro4/3 concepts are designs that go back to the previous century and are at least fifty years old. Using a Nikon F or a Nikon D3s does not ask for really different faculties or knowledge.
Let me be clear about this: I am happy with the Leica M9 and M7 and the range of tools that surround these cameras, because I am still photographing in the classical manner and I have no inclination to change this behavior. Some people even ask me to stop using AgX technology as this technique is presumed dead and totally obsolete. I would say that everything that is fun to use has its charm and can be of value to some persons. But I do see very clearly that the classical style of photography as a way of taking and using images is rapidly disappearing. On the other hand, even mainframe computers are popular again.
The American economist Herbert Simon has noted that one can never know anything for sure and that decision making is always subjective. So you may decide whatever you want. Why cannot we have secure decision making? First of all you never know if you have all relevant or necessary information. Secondly you do not know if your mental faculties are able to extract the maximum value from the information you do have and thirdly you do not have a limited time for decision making, so you will always have to cope with imperfect knowledge. This basic fact may be the reason why there are so many websites and internet forums that try to reassure anyone about the quality of his/her decision. Most internet forums do nothing else than giving information and assurance that the right decision has been made. This is called the conformity-domino effect: you only want to read what confirms what you already know or believe.
If Leica photographers would use only a fraction of their time they now spend on the internet discussing things Leica, for taking pictures in whatever way they seem fit, the quality of Leica imagery would explode. Taking and consuming Leica pictures is more satisfying than talking about Leica cameras. Leica cameras are not perfect. There never were. But the great masters of Leica photography adapted their style to the characteristics of the camera. The same is true for the capture medium: films were never ideal: all had quirks and defects. Trying to construct a perfect camera as part of a perfect imaging chain is a vain effort of shifting responsibility for the good picture to the material instead to the maker, that is the photographer. We live in an imperfect world and that is not going to change.
In the end I prefer to work within the limits of the camera and the medium.
This is a choice of course based on imperfect knowledge.
The Apple approach then concentrates on the HOW to do things. The pipedreaming on the internet about the development of equipment concentrates on the WHAT to have things. This is a totally misguided approach. It might be useful to get insights into the current ideas about what to like and dislike about products, but it would be wrong to assume that these ideas should be transformed into new products. The collective thinking may be good for very small incremental changes, but not for major innovations.
Remember the birth of the 35mm camera, designed by Barnack. He did not start with an existing product, but thought long and hard about the way people made photographs (the HOW question). Only after he concluded that a different way of taking pictures was needed, he started to design the new camera, helped by his work on the exposure device for the film camera developed by Mechau.
If we need a new M-camera or more general a new dCRF camera, it would be helpful to think first about how the way we take and use pictures in the digital age and then to device a product that supports this way of doing things. There are numerous studies now on the market by photographer-philosophers and photo-analysts who are developing new approaches to the production, distribution and consumption of digital images. Increasingly the word ‘photography’ is being replaced by ‘digital imaging’ and it may be a short time before we loose the adjective ‘digital’ and talk about images and image files. The camera, once the major part in the imaging chain, is rapidly becoming one of many equally important links in the imaging process. This change has happened with the computer, once a very important instrument, now a ubiquitous tool.
Starting from an existing product and projecting wishes into the future is certainly a pleasant way of killing time, but it is totally unproductive when you really want to chart the future. Then you need to think about how you want to take and use pictures in the next decade. Only when you know the future environment and the future goals, then you can design the products that support or even foster this new way of taking pictures.
There is not one company in the photographic industry that is really thinking of new products. The current dSLR and even the Micro4/3 concepts are designs that go back to the previous century and are at least fifty years old. Using a Nikon F or a Nikon D3s does not ask for really different faculties or knowledge.
Let me be clear about this: I am happy with the Leica M9 and M7 and the range of tools that surround these cameras, because I am still photographing in the classical manner and I have no inclination to change this behavior. Some people even ask me to stop using AgX technology as this technique is presumed dead and totally obsolete. I would say that everything that is fun to use has its charm and can be of value to some persons. But I do see very clearly that the classical style of photography as a way of taking and using images is rapidly disappearing. On the other hand, even mainframe computers are popular again.
The American economist Herbert Simon has noted that one can never know anything for sure and that decision making is always subjective. So you may decide whatever you want. Why cannot we have secure decision making? First of all you never know if you have all relevant or necessary information. Secondly you do not know if your mental faculties are able to extract the maximum value from the information you do have and thirdly you do not have a limited time for decision making, so you will always have to cope with imperfect knowledge. This basic fact may be the reason why there are so many websites and internet forums that try to reassure anyone about the quality of his/her decision. Most internet forums do nothing else than giving information and assurance that the right decision has been made. This is called the conformity-domino effect: you only want to read what confirms what you already know or believe.
If Leica photographers would use only a fraction of their time they now spend on the internet discussing things Leica, for taking pictures in whatever way they seem fit, the quality of Leica imagery would explode. Taking and consuming Leica pictures is more satisfying than talking about Leica cameras. Leica cameras are not perfect. There never were. But the great masters of Leica photography adapted their style to the characteristics of the camera. The same is true for the capture medium: films were never ideal: all had quirks and defects. Trying to construct a perfect camera as part of a perfect imaging chain is a vain effort of shifting responsibility for the good picture to the material instead to the maker, that is the photographer. We live in an imperfect world and that is not going to change.
In the end I prefer to work within the limits of the camera and the medium.
This is a choice of course based on imperfect knowledge.
Words
16/01/10 10:03
There was a time when it sufficed to say that the Leica M camera was of the CRF type. Anybody knew what are the technical characteristics of this camera type. Leafing through the recent issue of American Photo the Editors present their current choices of ear that photographers need. The Datacolor Spydercube is one such item. I have this one too. WIRED magazine was also favorable impressed by this gadget, but readers were not. The classical dilemma here in a nutshell: who to believe? Expert analysts or the popular voice. In addition to the Spydercube, the Editors choose the Leica M9 as an Editors Choice subject. The capture reads: finally a digital rangefinder that lets you think like a 35mm photographer. How is it to think like a 35mm photographer? The explanation notes that the M9 now has the same angle of view as the M7 or earlier Leica M bodies when you switch lenses with the same focal length. The explanation that the M8’s sensor increases the focal length by 1.3x is wrong. The M8 sensor can do magical things but not change the optical characteristics of the lens. A 50mm lens keeps its focal length of 50mm on an M8 as it did when you used the rare 18x24mm Leica 72.
More interesting is the choice of words to characterize the M9. It is no longer a precision CRF, but a non-DSLR, non-TTL finder equipped camera.
In the short description you can read almost every fallacy that is possible to note about the M camera. The resolution of the M9 is supposed to soar ahead of the M8 because of the larger number of pixels. But the pixel pitch and therefore the Nyquist limiting frequency are identical. THis is the same logical error as supposing that a medium format film has better resolution because the negative area has a larger size. Anyone using a Kodachrome 120 versus a Kodachrome 135 knows this to be not true. The bigger area helps to get closer to the subject and that allows to capture more details: it is the magnification factor that does it, not the sensor.
The M9 has one stop lower noise (at least according to the manufacturer’s specs) and this is good for shooting at lower shutter speeds and counters the lack of image stabilization. One stop difference is not a big one: if you can handhold at 1/125, you would not be in trouble using 1/60. And at lower shutter speeds, say 1/8, the picture will be unsharp, even if you are able to use 1/15.
The body of the M9 is bulkier than that of a 35mm Leica rangefinder and that is supposed to be a problem. Fact is that the M9 (and M8) are thicker than an M7 or MP, but the dimensions hardly differ: the 3mm additional thickness does not make the camera noticeably clumsier to handle. The idea that the Leica rangefinder can fit into one’s pocket has been gone since the M3 arrived on the scene. The Leica IIIc with a collapsible Elmar or Summar was the last of the Mohicans in this respect.
The M9 is indeed the smallest full-frame digital camera, but a non-DSLR non-TTL one.
More interesting is the choice of words to characterize the M9. It is no longer a precision CRF, but a non-DSLR, non-TTL finder equipped camera.
In the short description you can read almost every fallacy that is possible to note about the M camera. The resolution of the M9 is supposed to soar ahead of the M8 because of the larger number of pixels. But the pixel pitch and therefore the Nyquist limiting frequency are identical. THis is the same logical error as supposing that a medium format film has better resolution because the negative area has a larger size. Anyone using a Kodachrome 120 versus a Kodachrome 135 knows this to be not true. The bigger area helps to get closer to the subject and that allows to capture more details: it is the magnification factor that does it, not the sensor.
The M9 has one stop lower noise (at least according to the manufacturer’s specs) and this is good for shooting at lower shutter speeds and counters the lack of image stabilization. One stop difference is not a big one: if you can handhold at 1/125, you would not be in trouble using 1/60. And at lower shutter speeds, say 1/8, the picture will be unsharp, even if you are able to use 1/15.
The body of the M9 is bulkier than that of a 35mm Leica rangefinder and that is supposed to be a problem. Fact is that the M9 (and M8) are thicker than an M7 or MP, but the dimensions hardly differ: the 3mm additional thickness does not make the camera noticeably clumsier to handle. The idea that the Leica rangefinder can fit into one’s pocket has been gone since the M3 arrived on the scene. The Leica IIIc with a collapsible Elmar or Summar was the last of the Mohicans in this respect.
The M9 is indeed the smallest full-frame digital camera, but a non-DSLR non-TTL one.
What is in an eye
12/01/10 19:40
Some time ago I made a series of portraits on Spur Orthopan UR, printed them on paper in the dark darkroom and subsequently scanned the prints with an Epson V700 on high resolution. The resulting image files are 100 Mb and 8810 x 5354 pixels in greyscale mode.At 100% the picture would be 1 meters by 1.5 meters at 150 dpi.
When looking in the eye of the model, you can see me photographing the person with a Leica with a softbox as backgound. This detail you cannot see by the way.
Below the full picture and an enlargement of the eye. Note than the film is grainless.
Lost decade?
10/01/10 21:53
Lost decade?
For most reviewers the first decade of this 21st century, the so-called null-decade, has been a lost one. Purchasing power of most inhabitants of the western, industrialized world has not changed between 1999 and 2009; incomes, adjusted for inflation have not increased, no memorable artistic work and culture-defining trends can be discerned. People in China and India would beg to differ: the percentage of Chines living under the official poverty line dropped from 65% to 4%. We, in the west, may be proud on our accomplishments, notably the liberal democratic institutions and our market economy which gave us so many products to choose from and increased our general welfare to unprecedented heights. But so is our expenditure on sophisticated weaponry and on banker bonuses. It may be that we live in the best of all possible worlds, but it does no harm to look sideways sometimes to see how other people work and live. A sprinkle of Confucianism might do much good in our society that is more and more characterized by individualistic nihilism. See Sarah Palin in the US or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.
In the world of photography we may discern the same trends as in society at large. Look at the mainstream cameras from Nikon and Canon: the shape of the bodies has not changed since twenty years when celluloid was used for image capture and apart from the predictable improvements (more features, more power, more pixels) no true innovations have happened. We take pictures the same way we did twenty years ago and we even take pictures of the same subjects in identical shape and perspective. If you would take the trouble to compare the content of the internet forums ten years ago with the current content, you see the same style of discussion, the same topics and quite often the same persons who dominate the debate.
Leica is no exception. In 1999 the M6TTL was the only CRF camera in the program and a millenium version was being planned for 2000. The current M9 from 2009 is almost identical in shape and functions, the sole difference being the capture technology.
The Canon Powershot G11 might indicate the road to the future with one caveat: the smallish sensor size. The Olympus Pen E-Px and the Panasonic boast a mirror-less, compact body with high quality imagery and interchangeable lenses and the world seems to embrace the concept. In fact all Leica CRF models have the same properties. The MFT models have one problem and that is the small sensor (bigger than in the G11 of course).
There is a strong rumor that Nikon, Canon and Sony are developing mirror-less compact cameras with APS-C sensor sizes. The Leica X1 foreshadows this development. For Leica the X1 is a bold step and this could be a very promising one, but only when the camera offers interchangeable lenses and a redesigned set of functions. One could even imagine a digital CL with the M8 sensor size.
Thinking along these lines is the fallacy of the day. IT is technology-driven and follows a consumerism-based approach. What we really need is not more digital technology but more Confucianism injected into the photographic world. Minimal functionality, big sensors and compact, ergonomically designed bodies might help to regain focus on the image again and not on the list of possible features. The current trend is to let the in-camera computer programs and intelligent post processing software define the style and quality of the images we take.
It is time for a thorough rethinking of the photographic camera and its true purpose and function as an artistic tool and not as a vehicle for gadgets. We already have the iPhone for that. If this is not going to happen, it will be highly likely that we will look back in 2020 at another lost decade.
A totally different topic, but with some relevance for the reflections on a new kind of photographic experience, the current list of most successful artists since 2002 has Cindy Sherman (1954) on place 9 as the highest ranking photographer. Fischli and Weiss (1952) are second on the list and Thomas Ruff (1958) is third. On the list of promising artists we find Germaine Kruip (1970, Dutch) as the best photographer and Yto Barrado (1971, France) as the second photographer. On the list of most prolific artists we see again Fischli and Weiss, Sherman and Wolfgang Tillmans (1968). Most successful artists under 35 are Ryan Gander (1976) and Slater Bradley (1978), the only two photographers in a list dominated by Video/Film artists. Is it coincidence that camera manufacturers look at HD-Video in their products.
Most expensive photographers are: Sherman, Gurksy, Gilbert & George, Sugimoto and Kruger. Less expensive photographic work can be bought from: Goldin, Tillmans, Candida Höfer, Ruff, the Beckers, Struth, Louise Lawler, Thomas Demand, Rineke Dijkstra, Jeff Wall.
For most reviewers the first decade of this 21st century, the so-called null-decade, has been a lost one. Purchasing power of most inhabitants of the western, industrialized world has not changed between 1999 and 2009; incomes, adjusted for inflation have not increased, no memorable artistic work and culture-defining trends can be discerned. People in China and India would beg to differ: the percentage of Chines living under the official poverty line dropped from 65% to 4%. We, in the west, may be proud on our accomplishments, notably the liberal democratic institutions and our market economy which gave us so many products to choose from and increased our general welfare to unprecedented heights. But so is our expenditure on sophisticated weaponry and on banker bonuses. It may be that we live in the best of all possible worlds, but it does no harm to look sideways sometimes to see how other people work and live. A sprinkle of Confucianism might do much good in our society that is more and more characterized by individualistic nihilism. See Sarah Palin in the US or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.
In the world of photography we may discern the same trends as in society at large. Look at the mainstream cameras from Nikon and Canon: the shape of the bodies has not changed since twenty years when celluloid was used for image capture and apart from the predictable improvements (more features, more power, more pixels) no true innovations have happened. We take pictures the same way we did twenty years ago and we even take pictures of the same subjects in identical shape and perspective. If you would take the trouble to compare the content of the internet forums ten years ago with the current content, you see the same style of discussion, the same topics and quite often the same persons who dominate the debate.
Leica is no exception. In 1999 the M6TTL was the only CRF camera in the program and a millenium version was being planned for 2000. The current M9 from 2009 is almost identical in shape and functions, the sole difference being the capture technology.
The Canon Powershot G11 might indicate the road to the future with one caveat: the smallish sensor size. The Olympus Pen E-Px and the Panasonic boast a mirror-less, compact body with high quality imagery and interchangeable lenses and the world seems to embrace the concept. In fact all Leica CRF models have the same properties. The MFT models have one problem and that is the small sensor (bigger than in the G11 of course).
There is a strong rumor that Nikon, Canon and Sony are developing mirror-less compact cameras with APS-C sensor sizes. The Leica X1 foreshadows this development. For Leica the X1 is a bold step and this could be a very promising one, but only when the camera offers interchangeable lenses and a redesigned set of functions. One could even imagine a digital CL with the M8 sensor size.
Thinking along these lines is the fallacy of the day. IT is technology-driven and follows a consumerism-based approach. What we really need is not more digital technology but more Confucianism injected into the photographic world. Minimal functionality, big sensors and compact, ergonomically designed bodies might help to regain focus on the image again and not on the list of possible features. The current trend is to let the in-camera computer programs and intelligent post processing software define the style and quality of the images we take.
It is time for a thorough rethinking of the photographic camera and its true purpose and function as an artistic tool and not as a vehicle for gadgets. We already have the iPhone for that. If this is not going to happen, it will be highly likely that we will look back in 2020 at another lost decade.
A totally different topic, but with some relevance for the reflections on a new kind of photographic experience, the current list of most successful artists since 2002 has Cindy Sherman (1954) on place 9 as the highest ranking photographer. Fischli and Weiss (1952) are second on the list and Thomas Ruff (1958) is third. On the list of promising artists we find Germaine Kruip (1970, Dutch) as the best photographer and Yto Barrado (1971, France) as the second photographer. On the list of most prolific artists we see again Fischli and Weiss, Sherman and Wolfgang Tillmans (1968). Most successful artists under 35 are Ryan Gander (1976) and Slater Bradley (1978), the only two photographers in a list dominated by Video/Film artists. Is it coincidence that camera manufacturers look at HD-Video in their products.
Most expensive photographers are: Sherman, Gurksy, Gilbert & George, Sugimoto and Kruger. Less expensive photographic work can be bought from: Goldin, Tillmans, Candida Höfer, Ruff, the Beckers, Struth, Louise Lawler, Thomas Demand, Rineke Dijkstra, Jeff Wall.
A tale of thirteen lenses
30/12/09 11:44
My Leica M lenses
I am quite fortunate in having been able to use almost every Leica lens since 1925, but I actually own a very small fraction of all the lenses ever made.
The lenses I own and use are:
Elmarit-M 2.8/24 asph. chrome
Elmar-M 3.8/24 asph.
Summarit-M 2.5/35
Summarit-M 2.5/50
Summicron-M 2/50 special 50 anniversary edition chrome
Summilux-M 1.4/50 asph. black
Summilux-M 1.4/50 asph. chrome special LHSA edition
Apo-Summicron-M 2/75 asph
Summarit-M 2.5/75
Apo-Summicron-M 2/90 asph
Summarit 2.5/90
Apo-Telyt-M 3.4/135mm
Tri-Elmar-M 4/28-35-50 asph. chrome
The current range of Leica lenses is quite extensive, going from 16mm to 135mm and covering almost every conceivable assignment. This statement deserves a qualification. The lens range is related to the optical and mechanical limits of the manually focusing CRF. For a modern SLR camera a range from 10mm to 800mm is typical. The lens range for the Leica CRF can be extended with the help form Zeiss and Cosina with wide angle lenses from 12mm to 15mm.
The lenses I own are not necessary the best lenses Leica has on offer. The range is based on the use I have for the lenses and the fact that I dislike using additional finders. The exigency to have to switch your view from rangefinder to auxiliary frame-finder I find distracting. The additional bulk is also an unpleasant consequence. I know that the wide angle lenses have enough depth of field to allow photography in point-and-shoot style, but the new high-speed wide angles deserve careful focusing and framing for optimum effect.
There is still a widespread notion (very difficult to stamp out presumably) that wide angle lenses are required for landscape and architecture and tele-lenses for portrait and landscapes again, with the 35mm and 50mm falling between the two main categories and appropriate for reportage and documentary style of photography.
This is an unfortunate labeling of lens properties. The focal length of a lens determines the overall magnification and the relative proportions in size between foreground and background. The aperture determines the relation between in-focus and out-of focus areas and the combination of focal length and aperture defines the extension of the sharpness plane.
The skillful association of these properties define the photograph and its content and message. This blending of properties is not dependent on the subject matter but on the subjective quality of the photograph. You can create excellent portraits with a 1.4/21mm wide open and fully stopped down and great landscapes with a 2/90 wide open and stopped down to 16.
The focal length of 24mm is for me the wide angle limit as it is the shortest focal length that can be used on the M8 when using the range finder frame lines. On the M9 and all film loading M-bodies the additional finder is required. Both 24mm lenses, the Elmar and Elmarit offer superior performance and they are my preferred lenses when testing sensor or emulsion properties. Owning both is a bit of a luxury, but the Elmarit has a stop advantage (sometimes useful) and has the very classical chrome livery.
The new SX versions in 21mm and 24mm focal length offer a very impressive image quality. The lenses follow the now standard Leica design paradigm with aspherical surfaces, floating elements, special glass types and a Leica typical balance in the correction of aberrations. The ASPH and FLE properties were implemented by Canon around 1975. I would have preferred a restriction of the widest aperture to f/2, because this would have yielded more compact designs, but Leica would have countered that the difference between the existing 2.8 designs would not be enough to generate new sales. This is a fair argument.
The Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 is now out of production and my chrome version is one of only 500 made. The optical quality is most pleasing and this particular version has excellent mechanical operation, smoothly engaging the 28mm framelines. At 28mm the distortion is visible, but this can be used to enhance the message. On the M9 and M7 it makes good company and while you do not need to change lenses physically you avoid in the case of the M9 the possibility of attracting dust.
If you wish to have a set that is almost pocketable, the M camera can be fitted with the Summarit 35mm or the Summarit 50mm. The Summarit range is undeservedly neglected by Leica aficionados. The lenses are admirably compact and even the 90mm fits in a pocket. The four lenses together have a small footprint and two M bodies with these four lenses cover a wide range of subject matter and assignments. The range offers the very classical 35-90mm focal length, the mainstay of Leica CRF photography. The Summarit 50 is a very basic lens which suffers a bit from the fact that it is trimmed to such small proportions and offers one extreme of the range of choices in the 50mm spectrum. The NX 0.95/50mm is an impressive lens in size, price and performance. It has a strong sense of “yes-we-can” thinking and is verging on a luxury that can hardly be justified, unless as a prestige object. If there were only the Summarit or Summicron 50mm lenses the NX would offer a viable extension of possibilities, but the availability of the SX 50mm forces the NX to a more marginal role. The NX is a mechanical marvel and an optical tour de force. The challenges in optical and instrumental demands were such that the lens can be seen as a catalyst for general optical and mechanical design for Leica. The SX 50mm has the same basic design (ASPH, FLE, special glass), but the much bigger size of the lens elements and a new level of manufacturing tolerances plus the demand to keep the overall size as small as possible puts the NX on an elevated platform.
For most practical tasks the SX is more than enough and the NX is for my tastes to heavy and big. A real addition to the 50mm stable would be the often rumored 2/50mm with eight elements.
The Apo-Summicron 2/75 is outstandingly good and should be one of the first lenses to buy. It has a much wider versatility than is often assumed and is one of my most used lenses, next to the SX 50mm. The Summarit 75 is the preferred choice when I wish to travel light and that is also the argument for using the Summarit 90mm. For better performance I can select the Apo-Summicron 2/90 which stopped down is almost as good as the superior Elmarit-R 2.8/100mm. The A-S 90 could benefit from the inclusion of the FLE mechanism, but sometimes one needs to ask the inevitable question when to stop improving lenses beyond the level that most practitioners can appreciate and use.
I would plead for a new lens paradigm based on the observation that most high speed lenses are not used at infinity but the optical corrections assume infinity as the plane of sharpest focus. It would be interesting to study the advantages of high speed lenses corrected for let us say ten to twenty meters, so falling midway between the true macro corrections and the classical infinity corrections.
A mostly neglected lens is the Apo-Telyt 3.4/135mm. The once very popular focal length is now forgotten and there is some reason for this state of affairs. Most M cameras are fitted with the rangefinder magnification of 0.72 and 0.68 and the accuracy of this type in combination with the very small patch in the finder discourage the use of the 135. When applying the magnifier 1.25 or 1.4 this problem is mostly gone and certainly when you have the 0.85 rangefinder with one of these magnifiers. The 135mm has a most pleasing perspective and forces one to search closely for a good composition. It is a lens I do not use very frequently but on the M7 and MP loaded with Kodachrome (it still can during 2010) the lens brings unequalled image quality and colors.
I am quite fortunate in having been able to use almost every Leica lens since 1925, but I actually own a very small fraction of all the lenses ever made.
The lenses I own and use are:
Elmarit-M 2.8/24 asph. chrome
Elmar-M 3.8/24 asph.
Summarit-M 2.5/35
Summarit-M 2.5/50
Summicron-M 2/50 special 50 anniversary edition chrome
Summilux-M 1.4/50 asph. black
Summilux-M 1.4/50 asph. chrome special LHSA edition
Apo-Summicron-M 2/75 asph
Summarit-M 2.5/75
Apo-Summicron-M 2/90 asph
Summarit 2.5/90
Apo-Telyt-M 3.4/135mm
Tri-Elmar-M 4/28-35-50 asph. chrome
The current range of Leica lenses is quite extensive, going from 16mm to 135mm and covering almost every conceivable assignment. This statement deserves a qualification. The lens range is related to the optical and mechanical limits of the manually focusing CRF. For a modern SLR camera a range from 10mm to 800mm is typical. The lens range for the Leica CRF can be extended with the help form Zeiss and Cosina with wide angle lenses from 12mm to 15mm.
The lenses I own are not necessary the best lenses Leica has on offer. The range is based on the use I have for the lenses and the fact that I dislike using additional finders. The exigency to have to switch your view from rangefinder to auxiliary frame-finder I find distracting. The additional bulk is also an unpleasant consequence. I know that the wide angle lenses have enough depth of field to allow photography in point-and-shoot style, but the new high-speed wide angles deserve careful focusing and framing for optimum effect.
There is still a widespread notion (very difficult to stamp out presumably) that wide angle lenses are required for landscape and architecture and tele-lenses for portrait and landscapes again, with the 35mm and 50mm falling between the two main categories and appropriate for reportage and documentary style of photography.
This is an unfortunate labeling of lens properties. The focal length of a lens determines the overall magnification and the relative proportions in size between foreground and background. The aperture determines the relation between in-focus and out-of focus areas and the combination of focal length and aperture defines the extension of the sharpness plane.
The skillful association of these properties define the photograph and its content and message. This blending of properties is not dependent on the subject matter but on the subjective quality of the photograph. You can create excellent portraits with a 1.4/21mm wide open and fully stopped down and great landscapes with a 2/90 wide open and stopped down to 16.
The focal length of 24mm is for me the wide angle limit as it is the shortest focal length that can be used on the M8 when using the range finder frame lines. On the M9 and all film loading M-bodies the additional finder is required. Both 24mm lenses, the Elmar and Elmarit offer superior performance and they are my preferred lenses when testing sensor or emulsion properties. Owning both is a bit of a luxury, but the Elmarit has a stop advantage (sometimes useful) and has the very classical chrome livery.
The new SX versions in 21mm and 24mm focal length offer a very impressive image quality. The lenses follow the now standard Leica design paradigm with aspherical surfaces, floating elements, special glass types and a Leica typical balance in the correction of aberrations. The ASPH and FLE properties were implemented by Canon around 1975. I would have preferred a restriction of the widest aperture to f/2, because this would have yielded more compact designs, but Leica would have countered that the difference between the existing 2.8 designs would not be enough to generate new sales. This is a fair argument.
The Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 is now out of production and my chrome version is one of only 500 made. The optical quality is most pleasing and this particular version has excellent mechanical operation, smoothly engaging the 28mm framelines. At 28mm the distortion is visible, but this can be used to enhance the message. On the M9 and M7 it makes good company and while you do not need to change lenses physically you avoid in the case of the M9 the possibility of attracting dust.
If you wish to have a set that is almost pocketable, the M camera can be fitted with the Summarit 35mm or the Summarit 50mm. The Summarit range is undeservedly neglected by Leica aficionados. The lenses are admirably compact and even the 90mm fits in a pocket. The four lenses together have a small footprint and two M bodies with these four lenses cover a wide range of subject matter and assignments. The range offers the very classical 35-90mm focal length, the mainstay of Leica CRF photography. The Summarit 50 is a very basic lens which suffers a bit from the fact that it is trimmed to such small proportions and offers one extreme of the range of choices in the 50mm spectrum. The NX 0.95/50mm is an impressive lens in size, price and performance. It has a strong sense of “yes-we-can” thinking and is verging on a luxury that can hardly be justified, unless as a prestige object. If there were only the Summarit or Summicron 50mm lenses the NX would offer a viable extension of possibilities, but the availability of the SX 50mm forces the NX to a more marginal role. The NX is a mechanical marvel and an optical tour de force. The challenges in optical and instrumental demands were such that the lens can be seen as a catalyst for general optical and mechanical design for Leica. The SX 50mm has the same basic design (ASPH, FLE, special glass), but the much bigger size of the lens elements and a new level of manufacturing tolerances plus the demand to keep the overall size as small as possible puts the NX on an elevated platform.
For most practical tasks the SX is more than enough and the NX is for my tastes to heavy and big. A real addition to the 50mm stable would be the often rumored 2/50mm with eight elements.
The Apo-Summicron 2/75 is outstandingly good and should be one of the first lenses to buy. It has a much wider versatility than is often assumed and is one of my most used lenses, next to the SX 50mm. The Summarit 75 is the preferred choice when I wish to travel light and that is also the argument for using the Summarit 90mm. For better performance I can select the Apo-Summicron 2/90 which stopped down is almost as good as the superior Elmarit-R 2.8/100mm. The A-S 90 could benefit from the inclusion of the FLE mechanism, but sometimes one needs to ask the inevitable question when to stop improving lenses beyond the level that most practitioners can appreciate and use.
I would plead for a new lens paradigm based on the observation that most high speed lenses are not used at infinity but the optical corrections assume infinity as the plane of sharpest focus. It would be interesting to study the advantages of high speed lenses corrected for let us say ten to twenty meters, so falling midway between the true macro corrections and the classical infinity corrections.
A mostly neglected lens is the Apo-Telyt 3.4/135mm. The once very popular focal length is now forgotten and there is some reason for this state of affairs. Most M cameras are fitted with the rangefinder magnification of 0.72 and 0.68 and the accuracy of this type in combination with the very small patch in the finder discourage the use of the 135. When applying the magnifier 1.25 or 1.4 this problem is mostly gone and certainly when you have the 0.85 rangefinder with one of these magnifiers. The 135mm has a most pleasing perspective and forces one to search closely for a good composition. It is a lens I do not use very frequently but on the M7 and MP loaded with Kodachrome (it still can during 2010) the lens brings unequalled image quality and colors.
A tale of five Leicas
14/12/09 21:18
Tale of my five Leica cameras
I own five Leica M cameras, from M3 to M9.
The first one I would like to introduce is the Leica M3. Mine is from a late production series, around 1959, has had a recent overhaul and now works as new. Silky smooth operating, very clean and clear viewfinder (no yellowing at all), and the finest shutter sound in the world. No mechanical camera is as smooth as the M3 and operates with an audible and tactile precision. It is a joy to use and when loaded with modern film and modern lenses it can challenge the most recent m9, even if it is now more than fifty years old. I am sure the M9 will not last this long: the sensor will have died presumably in a decade or two. There is much hype and myth around this camera type. Fact is that it is a very well made camera, assembled by a highly trained workforce to a fine level of mechanical precision. To be honest a contemporary Nikon F is quite close in engineering quality, but lacks the careful treatment of metal surfaces that Leica so lavishly used in the manufacture of M3 components. My M3 is fitted with a current Summicron 2/50, the special 50 anniversary version in the style of the original model. In daily operations you miss the automatic exposure meter and guessing the exposure (once a simple craft) is no longer an option. In the glory days of the M3 films had a wider latitude to accommodate exposure errors and then the need for accurate exposure metering was not so pressing as today. On the other hand if you use your exposure meter to set the exposure, you can be sure that this setting will last for several hours unless the ambient light changes severely and then experience may guide you.
The M9 (mine is unique as it is the first M9 sold worldwide to a buyer) looks and feels like an M3, but the operation is totally different: it has automatic exposure, you can select ISO values without changing film, you load the camera with a post-stamp-sized card which can hold a thousand images, you select the color quality of the image and so on. You do not have to worry about exposure errors and you get immediate feedback about your images. No pre-visualization Ansel Adams style. The M9 is vastly more efficient as a picture capturing device, but the viewfinder is less accurate and the sound is just acceptable. The 1.4 viewfinder attachment is a must.
The half century time difference between the M3 and M9 earmark the deep changes that are happening in the photographic world. Both cameras can produce outstandingly good pictures, performance wise that is. The M9 does it competently and even leisurely. The M3 demands more attention and craftsmanship, but is more sympathetic to the user. My M9 is fitted with a black Summilux-M 1.4/50 asph., a lens that can cover most of my needs and requirements. It is a private and pleasant exercise to compare pictures with the M3/Summicon and M9/Summilux combo and reflect on a half century of development.
The M8.2 is fitted with the Elmar-M 3.8/24, one the best lenses in the Leica stable. If there is one lens that can challenge the performance of the sensor, it is this one. This combo is an excellent snapshot tool and the images processed with Aperture and Nik Efex can be amazingly good and effective. Creating good bw pictures in the postprocessing workflow is not so easy however. When working in the wet darkroom it is always a relief to note how easy it is to get high quality bw prints. Making positive remarks about the M8 is no longer en-vogue, but the smaller sensor area forces you to be very careful about composition and focusing, by the way the main arguments for working with a Leica CRF at all.
My M7 is quite unique as it is a camera assembled by myself from Leica parts to a zero tolerance machine. When assembling a camera, even a Leica, production tolerances in parts indicate a range of acceptable matings between parts. I was able to select components that fitted each other as close as possible. In this sense the camera is perfect. I still use this one on a daily basis (it has a 0.85 finder) with the Summicron 75mm and 90mm lenses. The rangefinder and lenses are matched to each other. And I can use this set as a benchmark to create best imagery. Loading this M7 with Spur Orthopan is a challenge: the sound barrier of 100 lp/mm is easily breached, but to get this result on paper is not so easy. Film has a tendency to merge adjacent grain clumps and fine lines separated by a fraction of a millimeter are easily merged. What you need here is the minimum of exposure on film and in the darkroom, but then the resulting prints lack deep black areas and show a moderate or even low contrast. To balance these conflicting demands is part of the joy of working with film. The results are more satisfying than what you get with the computer flow: DNG file-Aperture-Nik software-Epson printer-Hahnemuehle paper. The AgX processing is: Orthopan film-Orthopan developer-V35 enlarger-Schneider 40mm lens at f/11-Heiland module-Adox paper-Ilford developer.
My MP 3 LHSA Edition is a look alike of the original M3 camera. The camera is special as this is the only one in the world fitted with a 0.85 finder. The lens is again a Summilux-M 1.4/50mm asph., but now in the classical livery. In my view this one is one of the most beautiful designs ever made for a lensmount. THis body is mostly loaded with the new Kodak TMax 400 film. Comparing both 1.4/50mm lenses, it can be said that there are subtle differences between both versions, all within tolerance to be sure, but presenting a slightly different fingerprint. Comparing lenses under all possible circumstances asks for a life time of experience and I get every week more insights into the capabilities of a lens. The now ubiquitous test method of using the slanted edge test target as a source for image evaluation is fraught with problems and can generate conflicting results.
One of the main differences between AgX and digital workflow is the choice of the capturing medium. In the AgX world, one has to think about the type and style of photos you wish to make, carefully matching the film characteristics to the final result: it does not make sense to select a slow speed film when you are required to work handheld in low level ambient light. The wrong-film-in-my-camera-syndrome is an often experienced phenomenon. This selection process has the fine byproduct that you need to visualize your pictures and this concentrates the mind wonderfully. Film also has a limited length and you need to plan and work within these 36 exposures. Or use a second body loaded with he same or another filmtype. The digital camera does not operate within these restrictions, number of pictures is endless (at least a thousand fit on a big card) and you can change ISO on the fly and change the filmlook with the RAW software or special programs. This is a luxury that may invite you to become a bit careless during the picture taking hours.
Switching between film and sensor is not only nice because you can exploit the positive aspects of both types, but it also helps you to see he real differences between the two flows of work.
I own five Leica M cameras, from M3 to M9.
The first one I would like to introduce is the Leica M3. Mine is from a late production series, around 1959, has had a recent overhaul and now works as new. Silky smooth operating, very clean and clear viewfinder (no yellowing at all), and the finest shutter sound in the world. No mechanical camera is as smooth as the M3 and operates with an audible and tactile precision. It is a joy to use and when loaded with modern film and modern lenses it can challenge the most recent m9, even if it is now more than fifty years old. I am sure the M9 will not last this long: the sensor will have died presumably in a decade or two. There is much hype and myth around this camera type. Fact is that it is a very well made camera, assembled by a highly trained workforce to a fine level of mechanical precision. To be honest a contemporary Nikon F is quite close in engineering quality, but lacks the careful treatment of metal surfaces that Leica so lavishly used in the manufacture of M3 components. My M3 is fitted with a current Summicron 2/50, the special 50 anniversary version in the style of the original model. In daily operations you miss the automatic exposure meter and guessing the exposure (once a simple craft) is no longer an option. In the glory days of the M3 films had a wider latitude to accommodate exposure errors and then the need for accurate exposure metering was not so pressing as today. On the other hand if you use your exposure meter to set the exposure, you can be sure that this setting will last for several hours unless the ambient light changes severely and then experience may guide you.
The M9 (mine is unique as it is the first M9 sold worldwide to a buyer) looks and feels like an M3, but the operation is totally different: it has automatic exposure, you can select ISO values without changing film, you load the camera with a post-stamp-sized card which can hold a thousand images, you select the color quality of the image and so on. You do not have to worry about exposure errors and you get immediate feedback about your images. No pre-visualization Ansel Adams style. The M9 is vastly more efficient as a picture capturing device, but the viewfinder is less accurate and the sound is just acceptable. The 1.4 viewfinder attachment is a must.
The half century time difference between the M3 and M9 earmark the deep changes that are happening in the photographic world. Both cameras can produce outstandingly good pictures, performance wise that is. The M9 does it competently and even leisurely. The M3 demands more attention and craftsmanship, but is more sympathetic to the user. My M9 is fitted with a black Summilux-M 1.4/50 asph., a lens that can cover most of my needs and requirements. It is a private and pleasant exercise to compare pictures with the M3/Summicon and M9/Summilux combo and reflect on a half century of development.
The M8.2 is fitted with the Elmar-M 3.8/24, one the best lenses in the Leica stable. If there is one lens that can challenge the performance of the sensor, it is this one. This combo is an excellent snapshot tool and the images processed with Aperture and Nik Efex can be amazingly good and effective. Creating good bw pictures in the postprocessing workflow is not so easy however. When working in the wet darkroom it is always a relief to note how easy it is to get high quality bw prints. Making positive remarks about the M8 is no longer en-vogue, but the smaller sensor area forces you to be very careful about composition and focusing, by the way the main arguments for working with a Leica CRF at all.
My M7 is quite unique as it is a camera assembled by myself from Leica parts to a zero tolerance machine. When assembling a camera, even a Leica, production tolerances in parts indicate a range of acceptable matings between parts. I was able to select components that fitted each other as close as possible. In this sense the camera is perfect. I still use this one on a daily basis (it has a 0.85 finder) with the Summicron 75mm and 90mm lenses. The rangefinder and lenses are matched to each other. And I can use this set as a benchmark to create best imagery. Loading this M7 with Spur Orthopan is a challenge: the sound barrier of 100 lp/mm is easily breached, but to get this result on paper is not so easy. Film has a tendency to merge adjacent grain clumps and fine lines separated by a fraction of a millimeter are easily merged. What you need here is the minimum of exposure on film and in the darkroom, but then the resulting prints lack deep black areas and show a moderate or even low contrast. To balance these conflicting demands is part of the joy of working with film. The results are more satisfying than what you get with the computer flow: DNG file-Aperture-Nik software-Epson printer-Hahnemuehle paper. The AgX processing is: Orthopan film-Orthopan developer-V35 enlarger-Schneider 40mm lens at f/11-Heiland module-Adox paper-Ilford developer.
My MP 3 LHSA Edition is a look alike of the original M3 camera. The camera is special as this is the only one in the world fitted with a 0.85 finder. The lens is again a Summilux-M 1.4/50mm asph., but now in the classical livery. In my view this one is one of the most beautiful designs ever made for a lensmount. THis body is mostly loaded with the new Kodak TMax 400 film. Comparing both 1.4/50mm lenses, it can be said that there are subtle differences between both versions, all within tolerance to be sure, but presenting a slightly different fingerprint. Comparing lenses under all possible circumstances asks for a life time of experience and I get every week more insights into the capabilities of a lens. The now ubiquitous test method of using the slanted edge test target as a source for image evaluation is fraught with problems and can generate conflicting results.
One of the main differences between AgX and digital workflow is the choice of the capturing medium. In the AgX world, one has to think about the type and style of photos you wish to make, carefully matching the film characteristics to the final result: it does not make sense to select a slow speed film when you are required to work handheld in low level ambient light. The wrong-film-in-my-camera-syndrome is an often experienced phenomenon. This selection process has the fine byproduct that you need to visualize your pictures and this concentrates the mind wonderfully. Film also has a limited length and you need to plan and work within these 36 exposures. Or use a second body loaded with he same or another filmtype. The digital camera does not operate within these restrictions, number of pictures is endless (at least a thousand fit on a big card) and you can change ISO on the fly and change the filmlook with the RAW software or special programs. This is a luxury that may invite you to become a bit careless during the picture taking hours.
Switching between film and sensor is not only nice because you can exploit the positive aspects of both types, but it also helps you to see he real differences between the two flows of work.
December 7, 2009
07/12/09 19:14
Why we buy blockbusters and not niche products ?
Blockbusters in cinema, books and music and consumer products dominate the audiences and advertisers now even more than in the past. This seems to be a paradox as the internet has been seen as the medium where one could become more informed about niche products and had more sales opportunities. The amount of niche products would increase at the expense of the main players. The opposite happened. The growth of niche products has come at the expense of the products that are just popular, the middle class of products.
First of all all, everybody wants to be associated with a winner and want to have a topic to talk about with friends because everybody is talking about it. Secondly the almost limitless supply of products makes making a choice an act of desperation unless you choose the one on the top or the one everybody is talking about. Some people may thrill by the prospect of seeing a documentary about Leica cameras, but not many want to see this, notes the Economist in a recent article.
Statistics can show that regression to the average value is the norm in life. Extreme deviation is seldom and hardly effective. That is why most cameras offer all features of all others, there is an average list of features and designers tend to comply with this list and so do prospective buyers. Buying a Nikon or Canon is safe: it offers the average and everybody can talk about it and recognize it. It is simply a safe buy. Canon and Nikon have blockbusters and everybody wants to be associates with such a product or company. Blockbusters are not by itself the best products you can buy. They are basically the products most people want to buy or read or discuss about. Buying a Leica requires a lengthy explanation if anybody cares to listen to your arguments.
Marketing adds to this blockbuster tendency: advertising is now mostly outsourced to PR companies who simply scan an article about a product on negative comments: if there is one, you can forget about a followup in advertising revenue. However nonsensical the positive comments, they are positive anyway and that counts.
The Leica cameras have always followed the Wabi-ideal, discussed by Herrigel in his Zen in the Art of Archery, incidentally the book that Henri Cartier-Bresson mentioned as his inspiration for formulating the theory of the decisive moment. The Wabi ideal has been cultivated by the samurai in the notions of the beauty of less and the esthetics of frugality.
We happen to live in a society of superabundance where modesty is not seen as a positive attribute. And we want to be associated with winners. There is no doubt that the camera products from Canon and Nikon are blockbusters that offer the best and complete assemblage of the current main stream feature list. But they are not necessarily the best cameras you can buy. It is very difficult to swim against the stream and so ’no’ where everyone wants to hear ‘yes’. That is called the consensus-syndrome: a tendency to say and repeat what all others say and want to hear.
An interesting example of this tendency is the email I got from a reader of my website who attacked me because I made some positive remarks about AgX technology, a technique that is dead and no one should mention this now that digital is the dominant force where resistance is futile.
Recent financial results of the Leica company are not positive. Without the sales of the digital compacts the situation would have been dramatical. The true Leica fan might shudder at the fact that rebranded Panasonic cameras are the saviors of the company. The backlog of orders for the M9, S2 and X1 is quite substantial and more positive financial results can be expected for the next half year.
A blockbuster product cannot be detected in the Leica portfolio and for true niche products the selling price is quite high. Leica is in danger of maneuvering itself into the position of having near-misses, products that sell acceptably well but do not capture the imagination to become a product everyone is talking about. WIRED magazine was quite positive about the X1, but Leica is too often seen as a company struggling for survival and stature in the electronic imaging world. The M9 and the S2 are very competent cameras that command respect and even admiration, but they are not going to delight large numbers of people. And where Nikon and Canon continue to produce high-profile products with an occasional blockbuster, the number of people that are still discussing the characteristics and possibilities of the M9 (or S2) are dwarfed by the number of people that get excited about the newest camera product from Canon and Nikon.
In the current economic climate and environmental challenges one would wish that the Wabi-ideal could capture the imagination of more than a handful of people.
Reports in the NYT note that vinyl record albums and turn tables are gaining sales and the industry is now convinced that vinyl has staying power in the current market place. Film loading cameras may become desirable as well, again not becoming blockbusters, but as quoted in NYT: “It is absolutely easy to say vinyl doesn’t make sense when you look at convenience, portability, all those things,” Mr. Jbara said. “But all the really great stuff in our lives comes from a root of passion or love.”. Mike Jbara is president and chief executive of the sales and distribution division of Warner Music Group. Repace vinyl by film and you may get the message.
Blockbusters in cinema, books and music and consumer products dominate the audiences and advertisers now even more than in the past. This seems to be a paradox as the internet has been seen as the medium where one could become more informed about niche products and had more sales opportunities. The amount of niche products would increase at the expense of the main players. The opposite happened. The growth of niche products has come at the expense of the products that are just popular, the middle class of products.
First of all all, everybody wants to be associated with a winner and want to have a topic to talk about with friends because everybody is talking about it. Secondly the almost limitless supply of products makes making a choice an act of desperation unless you choose the one on the top or the one everybody is talking about. Some people may thrill by the prospect of seeing a documentary about Leica cameras, but not many want to see this, notes the Economist in a recent article.
Statistics can show that regression to the average value is the norm in life. Extreme deviation is seldom and hardly effective. That is why most cameras offer all features of all others, there is an average list of features and designers tend to comply with this list and so do prospective buyers. Buying a Nikon or Canon is safe: it offers the average and everybody can talk about it and recognize it. It is simply a safe buy. Canon and Nikon have blockbusters and everybody wants to be associates with such a product or company. Blockbusters are not by itself the best products you can buy. They are basically the products most people want to buy or read or discuss about. Buying a Leica requires a lengthy explanation if anybody cares to listen to your arguments.
Marketing adds to this blockbuster tendency: advertising is now mostly outsourced to PR companies who simply scan an article about a product on negative comments: if there is one, you can forget about a followup in advertising revenue. However nonsensical the positive comments, they are positive anyway and that counts.
The Leica cameras have always followed the Wabi-ideal, discussed by Herrigel in his Zen in the Art of Archery, incidentally the book that Henri Cartier-Bresson mentioned as his inspiration for formulating the theory of the decisive moment. The Wabi ideal has been cultivated by the samurai in the notions of the beauty of less and the esthetics of frugality.
We happen to live in a society of superabundance where modesty is not seen as a positive attribute. And we want to be associated with winners. There is no doubt that the camera products from Canon and Nikon are blockbusters that offer the best and complete assemblage of the current main stream feature list. But they are not necessarily the best cameras you can buy. It is very difficult to swim against the stream and so ’no’ where everyone wants to hear ‘yes’. That is called the consensus-syndrome: a tendency to say and repeat what all others say and want to hear.
An interesting example of this tendency is the email I got from a reader of my website who attacked me because I made some positive remarks about AgX technology, a technique that is dead and no one should mention this now that digital is the dominant force where resistance is futile.
Recent financial results of the Leica company are not positive. Without the sales of the digital compacts the situation would have been dramatical. The true Leica fan might shudder at the fact that rebranded Panasonic cameras are the saviors of the company. The backlog of orders for the M9, S2 and X1 is quite substantial and more positive financial results can be expected for the next half year.
A blockbuster product cannot be detected in the Leica portfolio and for true niche products the selling price is quite high. Leica is in danger of maneuvering itself into the position of having near-misses, products that sell acceptably well but do not capture the imagination to become a product everyone is talking about. WIRED magazine was quite positive about the X1, but Leica is too often seen as a company struggling for survival and stature in the electronic imaging world. The M9 and the S2 are very competent cameras that command respect and even admiration, but they are not going to delight large numbers of people. And where Nikon and Canon continue to produce high-profile products with an occasional blockbuster, the number of people that are still discussing the characteristics and possibilities of the M9 (or S2) are dwarfed by the number of people that get excited about the newest camera product from Canon and Nikon.
In the current economic climate and environmental challenges one would wish that the Wabi-ideal could capture the imagination of more than a handful of people.
Reports in the NYT note that vinyl record albums and turn tables are gaining sales and the industry is now convinced that vinyl has staying power in the current market place. Film loading cameras may become desirable as well, again not becoming blockbusters, but as quoted in NYT: “It is absolutely easy to say vinyl doesn’t make sense when you look at convenience, portability, all those things,” Mr. Jbara said. “But all the really great stuff in our lives comes from a root of passion or love.”. Mike Jbara is president and chief executive of the sales and distribution division of Warner Music Group. Repace vinyl by film and you may get the message.
November 2009
26/11/09 09:39
Is it possible to build the perfect camera? Of course it is: the technology is available, the manufacturing capabilities exist, even money is no problem. But ‘perfect’ is an elusive concept. The perfect shape for a fashion model is now quite different from what is was in the ‘fifties of the previous century. The Nikon F of 1959 was considered perfect because it offered the photographer a tool that could cope with existing assignments: it was extremely durable and reliable (photographers could not afford to buy a new camera every 18 months and did not want to relearn the handling of the camera), it was very flexible because every part could be exchanged for another one (the photographer could accept every assignment and adapt the camera to its own working habit), there was a large range of excellent quality lenses and with zoom lenses and motordrive expanded the scope of image taking. And indeed for more than a decade no one would even think of asking for more. The concept was so successful that the successors (Nikon F2 and competition Canon F1) hardly improved on the camera, but offered a twinkle more of automation. These cameras again lasted for a decade. And the feature list could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Current camera models have feature lists that approach book length and have evolved into computer assisted instruments for generating digital files. Taking pictures is now a small part of their scope and abilities, where in the past is was all there is. David Pogue of NYT has recently made a list of what would constitute a perfect camera.
1. Small enough for a pants pocket. 2. A big sensor. 3. Interchangeable lenses. 4. Simple, well-laid out controls. 5. Full manual controls. 6. Canned scene modes for beginners. 7. Superfast start-up. 8. No shutter lag (the annoying delay after you press the button). 9. No blur in low light. 10. An eyepiece viewfinder. 11. Huge screen. 12. Image stabilization. 13. Face recognition for perfect portraits. 14. The ability to take RAW photos (a format beloved by photographers because it lets them, in effect, change camera settings after the fact, using Photoshop). 15. Excellent burst mode — say, 5 shots a second. 16. Wide-angle lens. 17. Superzoom lens. 18. Customizable buttons. 19. Hi-def video capture. 20. Low price.
This list does provide a profile for the current mode in the picture world. We know take pictures in a totally different way than we did it half a century ago. And this list is a proof that we are constantly revising our idea of perfection. David Pogue notes that it is impossible to add all these requesta into one body simply because of the physics of size. A huge screen is not easy to fit in a camera that can be put in a pants pocket and when fitted with a superzoom lens it may be impossible. There is an interesting cultural shift to note: previous generations of photographers were happy to hang a camera around their neck so that every body could see they were photographers and the camera was immediately ready for shooting. Now we want a small camera in our pocket disguising the fact that we are photographers. The current style of picture taking is markedly different from what was the habit in previous decades.
The Leica M9 is firmly rooted in the old photographic style and when we check Pogue’s 20 points the M9 scores as follows (1) no, (2) yes, (3) yes, (4) yes, (5) yes, (6) n0, (7) no, (8) yes, (9) no, (10) yes, (11) no, (12) no, (13) no, (14) yes, (15) no, (16) yes, (17) no, (18) no, (19) no, (20) no.
Most positive checks point to features that belong to the Leica heritage, but most negative points refer to modern-style demands like HD video and face recognition. Can we then conclude that the M9 is not a perfect camera? Or to answer the question at the start of this article: could Leica build the perfect camera. They once did (it was the M3) and it is not a far stretch of the imagination to state that the M9 is quite close as the digitized and modernized version of the M3. But perfection is now measured along a different ruler (see the 20 points list).
By the way: After the introduction of the Leica M8 problems with the sensor emerged and the reputation of the M8 was severely compromised. The history is in danger of repeating itself: the M9 has an issue with the shading behavior when very wide angle lenses are used. Most explanations now in vogue are lacking substance, but Leica should quickly respond to this issue.
Current camera models have feature lists that approach book length and have evolved into computer assisted instruments for generating digital files. Taking pictures is now a small part of their scope and abilities, where in the past is was all there is. David Pogue of NYT has recently made a list of what would constitute a perfect camera.
1. Small enough for a pants pocket. 2. A big sensor. 3. Interchangeable lenses. 4. Simple, well-laid out controls. 5. Full manual controls. 6. Canned scene modes for beginners. 7. Superfast start-up. 8. No shutter lag (the annoying delay after you press the button). 9. No blur in low light. 10. An eyepiece viewfinder. 11. Huge screen. 12. Image stabilization. 13. Face recognition for perfect portraits. 14. The ability to take RAW photos (a format beloved by photographers because it lets them, in effect, change camera settings after the fact, using Photoshop). 15. Excellent burst mode — say, 5 shots a second. 16. Wide-angle lens. 17. Superzoom lens. 18. Customizable buttons. 19. Hi-def video capture. 20. Low price.
This list does provide a profile for the current mode in the picture world. We know take pictures in a totally different way than we did it half a century ago. And this list is a proof that we are constantly revising our idea of perfection. David Pogue notes that it is impossible to add all these requesta into one body simply because of the physics of size. A huge screen is not easy to fit in a camera that can be put in a pants pocket and when fitted with a superzoom lens it may be impossible. There is an interesting cultural shift to note: previous generations of photographers were happy to hang a camera around their neck so that every body could see they were photographers and the camera was immediately ready for shooting. Now we want a small camera in our pocket disguising the fact that we are photographers. The current style of picture taking is markedly different from what was the habit in previous decades.
The Leica M9 is firmly rooted in the old photographic style and when we check Pogue’s 20 points the M9 scores as follows (1) no, (2) yes, (3) yes, (4) yes, (5) yes, (6) n0, (7) no, (8) yes, (9) no, (10) yes, (11) no, (12) no, (13) no, (14) yes, (15) no, (16) yes, (17) no, (18) no, (19) no, (20) no.
Most positive checks point to features that belong to the Leica heritage, but most negative points refer to modern-style demands like HD video and face recognition. Can we then conclude that the M9 is not a perfect camera? Or to answer the question at the start of this article: could Leica build the perfect camera. They once did (it was the M3) and it is not a far stretch of the imagination to state that the M9 is quite close as the digitized and modernized version of the M3. But perfection is now measured along a different ruler (see the 20 points list).
By the way: After the introduction of the Leica M8 problems with the sensor emerged and the reputation of the M8 was severely compromised. The history is in danger of repeating itself: the M9 has an issue with the shading behavior when very wide angle lenses are used. Most explanations now in vogue are lacking substance, but Leica should quickly respond to this issue.