lars_bergquist Posted May 30, 2012 Share #1 Posted May 30, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sean Reid (Welcome to ReidReviews) has made careful side-by-side tests of files produced by the Fujifilm cameras X100 and X-Pro 1, both with APS-C size sensors (c. 23.6 x 17.7mm) and the Leica cameras M9 and M Monochrom (24 x 36mm). I value facts and objectivity higher than arm waving and hot air, which certainly have their own market, and I rate his results serious and worth consideration – and some further thinking. What strikes me is that the spread of results is considerably smaller, both than the spread between 35mm and medium format quality during the Film Age, and also than that between different types of film. The difference between the image structure of, say, Tri-X and Panatomic-X used in the same camera and behind the same lens, was rather greater than that between the X100 and the MM. After spending an appreciable part of half a century in various darkrooms I would also say that the variation is rather more similar to that between various darkroom practices in developing and printing. There are differences, yes. But the good Mr Reid finds, seemingly not without some consternation, that he cannot demonstrate these differences unless the viewer uses a large specialised monitor of one of two brands, equipment that he admits that few of us possess. Even at 100% crop they remain remarkably moderate. Yes I know what you will say, some of you. But what I may or may not see if I scrutinize a two by three foot print with a magnifier is not a very relevant criterion, I dare say. For then we are talking of the equivalent of different paper brands ... But what strikes me most is of what kind these differences are. They seem mostly to relate to different sensor technologies, or rather how the output signal is handled in the camera. Remarkably little of it seems to have to do with simple sensor size. The difference between e.g. noise levels are rather greater between the M9 and the Bayer-less MM than between the Fuji cameras and the M9. Then there are differences in colour rendition and in luminance tonality, but apart from the fact that these are difficult to grade in 'correctness' (is there any such thing as correct colour?) we have to admit that we then move into subtle territory indeed. So subtle that a slight nudge of a slider in Lightroom can change it completely. So this is the thesis that I hereby nail to the church door (possibly together with my off thumb ... ): In the digital age, the APS-C sensor format is what the 35mm film format was in the film age: The smallest size for which it is meaningful to build cameras with 'professional' features, because it is the smallest size that is good for professional use, i.e. producing a publishable print/image file. Yes, 35mm is now part of the medium format scene. It lives at the mobile, handy part of that scene, the way the Rolleiflexes and other 6x6cm cameras did, but it is no longer 'miniature format'. If 'Leica' means anything more than a registered brand name – if there is a Leica ethos of a small, practicable 'take it anywhere' camera with good flexibility and high quality output, the way the Leica camera was from the Leica I in 1925 to the Leica M4 in 1968 – then APS-C or something much like it is the 'Leica format' of the future. That camera too was expensive – it had to be – but it was never madly expensive. People like teachers, specialist workers and yes, young photographers building a career from the ground up, could afford it if they took their photography seriously. I love my M9 and will continue to use it. I have in fact exposed about as many acres or hectares of 120 film as 35mm. But what I hope for is for Leica Camera to develop a 'Leica ethos camera' and re-conquer its old market segment. And that would be a new Leica II and not a new Rolleiflex. The old man from the Kodachrome Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Hi lars_bergquist, Take a look here Sizing Up the Future. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bocaburger Posted May 30, 2012 Share #2 Posted May 30, 2012 So this is the thesis that I hereby nail to the church door (possibly together with my off thumb ... ): In the digital age, the APS-C sensor format is what the 35mm film format was in the film age: The smallest size for which it is meaningful to build cameras with 'professional' features, because it is the smallest size that is good for professional use, i.e. producing a publishable print/image file. By what definition of "publishable" and "professional"? Lately I'm seeing lots of iPhone-4 images published, shot by guys who call themselves professionals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share #3 Posted May 30, 2012 I still think there is a consensus definition. As Marshall McLuhan didn't say, but could have said: In the future everyone will be able to publish anything. So it all hinges on the definition of 'publishing'. There are also ADs that still claim for terabyte images so that they can be cropped to fit into any hare-brained layout they can conceive after the shooting. The old man from the 35mm Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted May 30, 2012 And didn't Minolta once launch a SLR camera with interchangeable lenses – for 110 size film? There are always exceptions to any rule. But the question is what kind of mark they make. The old man from the 35mm Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted May 30, 2012 Share #5 Posted May 30, 2012 @Lars, If the APS-C sensor is the digital equivalent of the 35mm film format as you advocate, I'm guessing that you would view the M9/M9P 24x36mm sensor based cameras as being the digital equivalent of perhaps the Fujitsu 6x9 medium format film cameras. Am I on the right path here? Also - what about the Monochrome M? Its sensor is very different from the M9 sensor as evidenced by the 100% increase in resolution that it is said to produce. This sensor seems to be a big step forward and something of a game changer in the digital world, lack of color capability aside. What are your thoughts on the M/M in light of your thesis which you nailed to the door of the church of digital photography? Also, are you lobbying for Leica to produce An APS -C sensor M camera? Or perhaps a non M lens compatible camera at a lower price to bring more photographers into the Leica clan? It seems that Leica's current compact digital offerings cover that base. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted May 30, 2012 Share #6 Posted May 30, 2012 By what definition of "publishable" and "professional"? Lately I'm seeing lots of iPhone-4 images published, shot by guys who call themselves professionals. if they are published (as you say) and actually get paid- then they are Pro's. The more they get paid: the more Pro they are:cool: If they publish I-phone photos- they are already ahead (on paper) of a guy who spent 7K on an M9 and another 15K on lenses....that guy can't be PRO until he has broken even- that's 22K worth of paid work before you can call yourself PRO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 30, 2012 Share #7 Posted May 30, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) And didn't Minolta once launch a SLR camera with interchangeable lenses – for 110 size film? Don't know about Minolta, but Pentax did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted May 30, 2012 Share #8 Posted May 30, 2012 Game changer? Or an expensive niche Curio on the borders of digital relevance with admittedly good IQ? Only one year will tell. I predict no real changes to 'the game' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted May 30, 2012 Share #9 Posted May 30, 2012 - ah the old Pentax 110. I had a complete boxed kit: full set of lenses, hoods and all. Got it mint in a special Box- out of a camera dealers window in 2000 for $100. Pictures were actually OK- but a very limited camera system (auto exposure only from memory)- and overall the camera was an absurdity- a trifle- a mere detour in the grand march of photography- made for the true camera enthusiast with more money than sense.... In some ways similar to the MM... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith Posted May 30, 2012 Share #10 Posted May 30, 2012 Many years ago, I did most of my photography with a pair of Olympus Pen Fs and a collection of lenses. Mostly on Panatomic X developed in Acutol. I still have many of the prints and their quality is surprisingly good. If I wanted better I used my Rollei TLR. Alwyn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 30, 2012 Share #11 Posted May 30, 2012 [...] Lately I'm seeing lots of iPhone-4 images published, shot by guys who call themselves professionals. No comment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 30, 2012 Share #12 Posted May 30, 2012 if there is a Leica ethos of a small, practicable 'take it anywhere' camera with good flexibility and high quality output, the way the Leica camera was from the Leica I in 1925 to the Leica M4 in 1968 – then APS-C or something much like it is the 'Leica format' of the future. This would mean a paradigm shift, methinks, if that camera were to take M mount lenses. But would it not be more logical to stick to the current 24x36 sensor format? The higher price of such sensors - which arguably will improve at the same clip as APS-C and other sensors - isn't really a concern for Leica or its users (though some certainly, rightly, express concern over the M prices; I note you didn't include the price in your definition of a "take it anywhere" camera). Cheers Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 30, 2012 Share #13 Posted May 30, 2012 - ah the old Pentax 110. I had a complete boxed kit: full set of lenses, hoods and all. Got it mint in a special Box- out of a camera dealers window in 2000 for $100. ... made for the true camera enthusiast with more money than sense.... Haha! I bought two sets, just in time for 110 film to be discontinued! As for the original post - one of the best ever on LUF. A classic of good sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 30, 2012 Share #14 Posted May 30, 2012 And Mr. Reid reiterates that the M8.2 is one of his all time favorite cameras, and is more affordable. Smart guy, especially now that we've established with the MM that filters aren't so bad after all. Leica could have continued APS-H, at a lower price point than FF, and addressed some of Lars' points. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
normclarke Posted May 30, 2012 Share #15 Posted May 30, 2012 The conclusion in last weeks AP(UK) was that the XPRO-1 was a better buy than the M9. Taking all things in to consideration. Best, normclarke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted May 30, 2012 Share #16 Posted May 30, 2012 That is consistent with all of AP's tests of Leica products. Price and simplicity and lack of many modern menu items is held as a negative in their scores. For the majority of AP readers, that is probably true. Serious old-fashioned experienced photographers have different views. It depends how you interpret the results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted May 30, 2012 Share #17 Posted May 30, 2012 I haven't read the SR Review but I suppose it's done in a controlled environment like many other reviews, my limited experience (about 450 shots with APS-C) is that using the camera in real life is very different from the reviews. Getting correctly exposed shots (without clippings) can be very difficult on an APS-C compared to the M9, but it could differ between camera brands? The APS-C sized cameras are lower priced though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted May 30, 2012 Share #18 Posted May 30, 2012 My images with the GXR and an "old" 35/2.0 Leica v4 lens (#11310) yield very nice results with a good feeling of depth and separation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share #19 Posted May 31, 2012 @Lars, If the APS-C sensor is the digital equivalent of the 35mm film format as you advocate, I'm guessing that you would view the M9/M9P 24x36mm sensor based cameras as being the digital equivalent of perhaps the Fujitsu 6x9 medium format film cameras. Am I on the right path here? My feeling is that 24x36 has about the position that 6x6 (Rollei TLR, various Zeiss folders) occupied. Also - what about the Monochrome M? Its sensor is very different from the M9 sensor as evidenced by the 100% increase in resolution that it is said to produce. This sensor seems to be a big step forward and something of a game changer in the digital world, lack of color capability aside. It is the same sensor, minus the Bayer filtering. The resolution increase comes in the in-camera signal processing, i.e. the lack of demosaicing. What are your thoughts on the M/M in light of your thesis which you nailed to the door of the church of digital photography? It is interesting, but as I pointed out, it has nothing to do with sensor size. This could have been done with a sensor of any size, including both APS-C and medium format (Phase have actually done it). Also, are you lobbying for Leica to produce An APS -C sensor M camera? Or perhaps a non M lens compatible camera at a lower price to bring more photographers into the Leica clan? It seems that Leica's current compact digital offerings cover that base. Disclosure: I am 'lobbying' for a M-lens-compatible mirrorless camera with a sensor size smaller than 24x36. Meaning APS-C or something like that of the M8. Not that I think that Leica has any reason to listen specailly to just me ... and besides, the parameters and probably even the design of that camera have in all probability already been nailed down by the Gnomes of Solms (possibly at the cost of some thumbs). The old man from the 35mm Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share #20 Posted May 31, 2012 if they are published (as you say) and actually get paid- then they are Pro's. The more they get paid: the more Pro they are:cool: If they publish I-phone photos- they are already ahead (on paper) of a guy who spent 7K on an M9 and another 15K on lenses....that guy can't be PRO until he has broken even- that's 22K worth of paid work before you can call yourself PRO. My morning newspaper does print most every day several shots made by ordinary readers with p&s compacts. Is that 'publishing'? Does that make these good people into 'professional photographers'? A person who makes his living by photography is a working photographer. Professionalism however does also, in common parlance, imply a certain level of technical proficiency. A working photographer may, or may not, possess that proficiency. I can see that some of them don't. I have done some editing of other peoples' photos in my life! Henri Lartigue e.g., for all that I know, never had to make his living by taking photographs. So he was not a 'pro' according to your definition. Who cares? The old man from the 35mm Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.