Open Letter to Leica — 10 Ways To Improve the M9 Rangefinder

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think you miss the point ...

 

No.

 

Not at all.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stunsworth]

I would rather not have my food chewed for me either

 

Isn't there an alcoholic drink that's traditionally made by rice juice that ferments after the rice is chewed by women, and the saliva spat into a container?

 

Then again, judging by the taste, that's how they make Budweiser.

[AlanG]

No.

 

Not at all.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

So what the heck was your point then since it is not reducing your ability to do this yourself? It could also make optical viewfinders more viable.

[mwilliamsphotography]

We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be to added ours.

 

All decisions will be made by the hive mind.

 

Photographic perfection will be obtained by the collective.

 

-Marc

[stevelap]

From what I've read of Light Field elsewhere it's an interesting concept, but how will gaussian out of focus effects compare to the best lens produced bokeh? Not favourably I suspect.

[mjh]

From what I've read of Light Field elsewhere it's an interesting concept, but how will gaussian out of focus effects compare to the best lens produced bokeh?

What has Gauss got to do with it? This is as good as the real thing, not some artificially created blur.

[stevelap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Michael, I'm assuming these effects are for the most part software created, or at least heavily influenced. I.e. software manipulation of the particular plane of light from the 'field'. I could be wrong.

[AlanG]

We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be to added ours.

 

All decisions will be made by the hive mind.

 

Photographic perfection will be obtained by the collective.

 

-Marc

 

I really have a hard time understanding why you think this way when this is a tool that gives photographers more individual control over an image than they could previously have imagined. The sample interactive focus images are just one possibility. You should be able to lock down an image with the focus any way you want. Perhaps some see the fact that camera focusing skill will no longer be important as a downside, but the trade-off will be that you can shoot in difficult light with shallow depth of field and not have to worry about getting the lens focused "perfectly." And you will also be able to shoot in low light at higher shutter speeds and get a lot of depth of field. (or any other focus effect.)

[jaapv]

Isn't there an alcoholic drink that's traditionally made by rice juice that ferments after the rice is chewed by women, and the saliva spat into a container?

 

Then again, judging by the taste, that's how they make Budweiser.

The American one I suppose. They stole the name. The real stuff comes from Budovice in the Czech republic and is rather good.

 

Budweiser Budvar Brewery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[diogenis]

Can light field tehnology, undress let's say, stars? J LO for example? If it can do this, I will buy it in a sec, otherwise it sucks:D

[AlanG]

Michael, I'm assuming these effects are, for the most part, software created, i.e. heavy software manipulation of the particular plane of light from the 'field'.

 

The images are entirely software generated from an array of many smaller images that are produced by a microlens that creates these "sub-images" through the main lens. Consider that a standard digital image is a software creation from brightness values at various points and this new technology is a software generated image made from numerous selected tiny images. To get different focusing effects, specific tiny images are selected and then blended into the final image.

 

Conceptually, this is a much more comprehensive way of capturing a scene than is possible through "normal" photography and I don't see why it and/or other new methods will not take over from most normal photography at some point in the future when it is developed further. A workable camera (probably fairly low res.) has been announced for release this year. So we'll see how people start using it before too long.

 

The software that generates the final image from these tiny images is what makes the entire concept work and gives the control we need. The quality of each of these sub images is determined by the pixel density. Sensor megapixel count will have to increase for resolution to improve significantly. But there is no reason why this won't be possible before too long as a full frame sensor could be made today with a very high pixel density and would be usable if all that data could be processed fairly quickly. And as the software advances, the quality and possibilities will advance too.

 

This sort of reminds me of years go when audio CDs first came out. I heard one scientist say that he was surprised how fast the technology caught up with the concept.

[andybarton]

Isn't there an alcoholic drink that's traditionally made by rice juice that ferments after the rice is chewed by women, and the saliva spat into a container?.

 

I think it's a banana cocktail. I'm sure I had some. Once.

 

I've done a google and can't find it. I think I must be mistaken. Which doesn't surprise me, given when it would have been

[AlanG]

Can light field tehnology, undress let's say, stars? J LO for example? If it can do this, I will buy it in a sec, otherwise it sucks:D

 

It can but it is limited. So far they have only been able to undress Betty White and put clothes back onto Anthony Weiner.

[mjh]

Michael, I'm assuming these effects are for the most part software created, or at least heavily influenced. I.e. software manipulation of the particular plane of light from the 'field'. I could be wrong.

Think of a conventional sensor with microlenses: every microlens creates an image of the exit pupil and the photosite underneath captures all the light from the exit pupil. Now think about a sensor with (a) microlenses of a higher optical quality and ( an array of photosites underneath each microlens, rather than just a single one. Such a sensor would capture an actual image of the exit pupil at every pixel (which is kind of a super-pixel comprising an array of sub-pixels).

 

From the data captured by such a sensor you can not only tell how much light was captured by each super-pixel, but you could also tell how much light came from each point in the exit pupil. Put differently you can tell where the light came from – in fact you could trace each ray from the photosite back through the lens to the subject.

 

Now one of the simplest tasks would be to simulate shots taken at different f-stops. For this you would just select those sub-pixels of each super-pixel that fall inside the hypothetical exit pupil for the given f-stop and average their values. Within the limits of the sensor resolution the result would be identical to an image taken at that aperture setting.

 

Or suppose you want to change the focus – say the lens was focused at 2 m but you want to focus on something at 10 m. A sharp image of that subject at 10 m would have been captured, say, 2 mm in front of the sensor, so what could you do? Since you know all the incident angles you can calculate where each ray would have hit a hypothetical sensor 2 mm in front of the actual sensor and from this data you can compute an image, just as before.

[Jamie Roberts]

As long as light field comes along in time for my own eyes giving out for MF, I'm all for it.

 

Honestly, I think it's fascinating, truly--as a brand new medium.

 

Those of us who are still enamoured of the old one, though, like to think there is something special about the moment of the capture, and not just the post-production.

 

So I understand both the Borg and pre-digested comments The downside of the new medium will be more and faster ways to screw up than ever before! Heart-shaped focal fields? <Shudder...> The selective colour of 2015

 

But it is fascinating, to be sure. I honestly don't know, though, how long it will be before there is a practical system that can print.

 

I suppose given a normal tech curve, maybe 10 years? Or are we looking at pure physical limitations?

 

I saw a demonstration of this technology maybe 5 or 6 years ago and it's very interesting.

[AlanG]

But it is fascinating, to be sure. I honestly don't know, though, how long it will be before there is a practical system that can print.

 

I suppose given a normal tech curve, maybe 10 years? Or are we looking at pure physical limitations?

 

I saw a demonstration of this technology maybe 5 or 6 years ago and it's very interesting.

 

There is nothing about it that is going to tell you when to push the button to take a picture. Or control where you point the camera. Or how you set up a photo - props, lights, models, etc. That all stays the same.

 

We'll have to see the quality of the images from the consumer camera that comes out this year. Printing images from it would be part of the system, but maybe not to the quality you are thinking of.

 

I saw an interview today of Lypro's Exec Chairman Charles Chi said they plan to introduce updated cameras regularly. (I bet they have an iPhone/iPad consumer business model.) I have no idea how well these early cameras will do in the marketplace. The video showed someone shooting the Lytro party yesterday with one of their cameras that was concealed by a knit cover.

 

We don't know what else they plan to do with this technology (license it or develop other cameras) or if some other companies have similar ideas in the works. But since the work of producing the software looks to me like the hard part, I don't see why this would not be readily scalable to larger higher res. sensors right now unless the software still needs more development to make really good images. (These initial samples certainly are not as smooth as we are used to seeing even in low res images.)

 

Besides the pictorial and consumer uses we can think of, applications for this in various fields of applied photography will be incredible and may drive the development of higher end systems pretty quickly. Military and surveillance uses for this alone will be a high end cottage industry. Picture a system like this on a small bomb sniffing robot that is remotely sent to look into a room for instance. Better depth of field in low light. It could possibly be used to calculate the distance between objects and actually map out a semi spherical image of the space. Biomed, forensic, macro, photomicroscopy...lots of other uses I'm sure.

 

It is hard for me to picture why any photographer would not be excited over the development of an entirely new way to visually interpret and express his/her view on the world.

[charlesphoto99]

Isn't there an alcoholic drink that's traditionally made by rice juice that ferments after the rice is chewed by women, and the saliva spat into a container?

 

Then again, judging by the taste, that's how they make Budweiser.

 

Chicha in South America. From corn usually but other grains as well.

[IkarusJohn]

Isn't there an alcoholic drink that's traditionally made by rice juice that ferments after the rice is chewed by women, and the saliva spat into a container?

 

Then again, judging by the taste, that's how they make Budweiser.

 

You may be thinking of kava.

 

Cheers

John

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mwilliamsphotography]

I really have a hard time understanding why you think this way when this is a tool that gives photographers more individual control over an image than they could previously have imagined. The sample interactive focus images are just one possibility. You should be able to lock down an image with the focus any way you want. Perhaps some see the fact that camera focusing skill will no longer be important as a downside, but the trade-off will be that you can shoot in difficult light with shallow depth of field and not have to worry about getting the lens focused "perfectly." And you will also be able to shoot in low light at higher shutter speeds and get a lot of depth of field. (or any other focus effect.)

 

All kidding aside Alan, I think technology is swell ... and I have my share of high tech toys.

 

Must everyone think there is a right or wrong way of applying technology to photography? I don't think this application of technology is wrong, it's just of no interest to me at all, especially since it has no meaning for taking photos today what-so-ever.

 

There is the school of thought that forwards the idea of personal mastery, of some challenge to the craft that builds skill, character and creative involvement as a whole ... not as decisions made after the actual moment in time when the image was taken, and all the altered states of mind, and second guessing that may effect (or infect) the emotional connection that was at play in that split second in time . There is already an abundance of evidence that that is happening with the commodification of photography in general.

 

In short ... for some, it's the journey as much or more than the destination.

 

Plus, where does it stop? What is the threshold? It is quite conceivable that hardware/software can also make focal length choices and framing an image a moot point since one can do it later with infinite cropping ... and focus later ... and change perspective later ... and so on. None of that is beyond the realm of near term possibility.

 

Personally, I'd prefer technology be used to improve the basics without necessarily changing the nature of taking photographs (as opposed to making photographs).

 

Please allow me to forward one example of technology applied to the basics that didn't alter the nature or experiential aspect of a camera I use.

 

Hasselblad used technology to solve the AF issue of off-center compositions with their True Focus Absolute Position Lock feature on the H4D cameras. I can point the center AF point anywhere I wish, and recompose like usual even with the subject in a far corner or on the edge of the frame ... except the camera precisely corrects the critical focus due to the change in distance to subject when recomposing.

 

I am not technophobic, nor am I likely to be assimilated : -)

 

-Marc

[AlanG]

Marc, with all do respect you are making a distinction between mastering and taking pride in the process vs. simply being results driven. I bet artists said the same thing when oil paint first became available pre-made in tubes. I know that some photographers looked down at others who couldn't coat their own plates.

 

I understand as much as anyone how the craft of general photography has changed over time. I used to use a view camera and make dye transfer prints for heaven's sake. And my professor, Robert Bagby, would reflect on dye transfer as not requiring the skills he used to need when making Carbro prints from his three shot color camera back in the 30s.

 

Since its inception photography has steadily become easier and more convenient. This may go against the concept of paying one's dues to master a craft or irritate us that some of our skills are no longer so valuable. But on the flip side it has always opened up the possibility for us to do more with our photography because we have access to the new tools along with our old ones. Some people are still shooting Daguerreotypes today. So you can use what ever process that meets your need for craftsmanship.

 

Personally, I feel I have more than paid my dues and proven to myself that I am quite a skilled craftsman that I am pretty much results oriented now. Although I do use similar skills to adjust an image on a computer as I did to print one conventionally and I feel about the same sense of pride for that. Adjusting a Lytro picture for me will be about the same as using a view camera. Whether I choose the plane of focus in advance or after the fact is the same thing to me. Some of the other things won't feel like cheating to me either because if I am incapable of shooting a normal image and getting a moving person perfectly focused in a certain situation it doesn't mean that I didn't want it in focus. I can't take pride in the fact that I tried and failed.

 

However, what I see in this Lytro announcement goes way beyond any of the gradual changes in photography that made it more convenient or "better." It is an entirely new way of visually capturing an environment than could be achieved with any previous technology no matter how much craftsmanship you put into it. So in that regard it is a new medium and it will have to define itself in its own way with a new set of tools and standards of craftsmanship.

 

To bring this back to Leica, was the original idea to make a small quick to use camera with a specific method of focusing or was it simply to make a small camera that would be easy to focus and use quickly? This goal eventually led to a coupled rangefinder being added to the Leica because that was the fastest and smallest technology available. A reflex system was added soon after the rangefinder in order to expand the usefulness of the system. But it made it slower and larger.

 

If Oscar Barnack had some kind of more advanced technology that without adding any size or complexity, allowed him to make a camera that automatically and precisely focused on exactly what you wanted or even one that would allow focus control later, wouldn't he have used it?

 

Eventually this Lytro or something similar is what we will have to choose from if we wish and at that point our opinions over whether this will require more or less craftsmanship won't affect its adoption at all. Because many people are simply results driven. (Especially in applied photography.) This explains why dye transfer is gone.

 

Considering that Lytro plans to have cameras on the market this year, it is certainly not far fetched to think much higher quality versions might be along soon enough that traditional camera manufacturers will have to take it seriously in their long range planning. Camera makers who do not see this technology as disruptive to the entire industry and figure out how to incorporate it will be SOL at some point in the future. I can't say when this will be but it might be sooner than we think.