Sizing Up the Future

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't know about Minolta, but Pentax did.

Right – I stand corrected. Old men forget.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

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'

 

The game has already changed. Go take a look in any well-stocked camera store.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[lars_bergquist]

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

 

I did expressly make affordability – for the reasonably dedicated, at least – part of the 'Leica ethos'.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[lars_bergquist]

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.

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with sensor size. It has a lot to do with camera design, especially the design of the metering system. The M8 and the M9 have different size sensors, but similar metering systems – and they are equally easy to expose well with.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[Ellie]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with sensor size. It has a lot to do with camera design, especially the design of the metering system. The M8 and the M9 have different size sensors, but similar metering systems – and they are equally easy to expose well with.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

 

My experience is that the APS-C has a smaller DR than the M9 and a high contrast scene requires more from the photographer. The problem with reviews is that they usually only look at some aspects of a camera, they can be useful for comparisons but it's not the whole truth.

[250swb]

I think there is a flaw in your reasoning Lars, although generally you make a good point.

 

And that flaw is that the new m4/3 sensor in the Olympus E-M5 shows that it is equal to the resolution of an NEX-7 sensor (or possibly beats it), it also has as high a dynamic range, and the high ISO performance is on a par right up to 6000 ISO. And of course unlike an APSC design camera, it doesn't need a great big fat lens on a small body for it to work. The world has moved on again, and what we knew yesterday we don't know today.

 

Steve

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here are two posts. From Ellie:

 

My experience is that the APS-C has a smaller DR than the M9 and a high contrast scene requires more from the photographer. The problem with reviews is that they usually only look at some aspects of a camera, they can be useful for comparisons but it's not the whole truth.

 

From 250 swb:

 

I think there is a flaw in your reasoning Lars, although generally you make a good point.

 

And that flaw is that the new m4/3 sensor in the Olympus E-M5 shows that it is equal to the resolution of an NEX-7 sensor (or possibly beats it), it also has as high a dynamic range, and the high ISO performance is on a par right up to 6000 ISO. And of course unlike an APSC design camera, it doesn't need a great big fat lens on a small body for it to work. The world has moved on again, and what we knew yesterday we don't know today.

 

In order to achieve greater resolution (raw sensor 'Nyquist' resolution) with a constant size, you have to put in more pixels in the same space. Thus the pixels will have to be smaller. Thus the number of photons that each pixel can capture, change into electrons and store, must be smaller. Thus dynamic range must be smaller, giving us a less robust file.

 

This with the reservation of ceteris paribus, 'all other things being equal'. But yes, technology improves. Especially signal processing technology. Therefore different sensor generations cannot be completely comparable. But technology cannot suspend natural laws. So the relationship between sensor and pixel size remains, and with thechnology of the same generation, the trade-off remains the same. Over time, it also remains, but maybe on a different level.

 

I do not plug for one specific sensor size, in millimeters. I simply say that for most purposes, even that of pro photographers, 24x36mm has become overkill. It is not overkill for some people. The S2 is not overkill for some people. 4"x5" is not overkill for some people. But here we are speaking not of individuals, not even of market segments. We are talking about the camera market. And there I think that I am not in error. And I think that MFT is something like the 18x24mm 'half format' of film. I may be wrong of course, but I suspect not.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[philipus]

Well you are right in that sensors tend to include more and more pixels, thus cramming (or beginnig to cram) the equivalent of MF resolution into a smaller space. As you know, camera manufacturers have realised that this development notwithstanding customers want better dynamic range and have therefore pulled down on resolution in favour of bigger photon-gathering pixels. Next step - and we're probably already there with the D800 - is better DR at a smaller pixel pitch.

 

What I meant by "paradigm shift" for Leica is that all lenses are built around the 24x36 format. It would be pretty massive for them to switch to a smaller sensor format. Not to mention that their dedicated photographers would also find it difficult. Sure, there was the M8 but its smaller sensor size resulted from a different technical reality than where we are now. Leica stuck to full frame - to use a worn-out term - because its photographers expected it.

 

Now, as Leica's dedicated photographers get old and die the full-frame concept may/is going to become less important and even disappear; new photographers who enter the Leica world will not have heard about it let alone be even half concerned that the vintage lenses they use were initially designed for an anachronistic 24x36 format sensor.

 

This has happened already with Canon, Nikon and other brands where the photographers happily accept tunnel vision in the VF.

 

Or, Leica may stick to 24x36 because they're a traditional company, regardless of whether similar results can be obtained using an APS-C, or other format, sensor.

 

Time will tell.

[pgk]

But what I hope for is for Leica Camera to develop a 'Leica ethos camera' and re-conquer its old market segment.

I suspect that the future may hold many more surprises, one of which may be that the photography market as we have known and still (to a large extent at least) know it today, may change significantly.

 

When I watched the Olympic Flame go past the other day I saw more people shooting on 'phones than cameras and also a number of iPads (or similar devices) being used to capture the event (I think that both were being used to shoot a mix of video and stills by the look of things). This was confirmed last night when I talked to friends who had also shot the event on their 'phones - they might have used compacts or even SLRs in the past but few do so now.

 

What place the simple still image camera will retain is anybody's guess - I certainly don't want to predict what might happen. I do think that there will be a place for a higher quality image producing instrument, but again just what technology this might entail using is guesswork.

 

I do agree though that 35mm has become the new medium format. An advertising photographer I know is selling up his digital MF gear and moving to the Nikon D800 because it produces files adequate for his client's needs - the ultimate 'pro test'. I personally find a lot of the APSC cameras to be too small - personally I don't see any massive benefit to using a sensor size smaller than 35mm these days and found that I adapted to the M8 essentially because, although it had a smaller sensor, it was in a 35mm sized body which I was used to. Many younger photographers no doubt see such issues very differently because they have not been brought up with 35mm cameras.

[stevelap]

I think there is a flaw in your reasoning Lars, although generally you make a good point.

 

And that flaw is that the new m4/3 sensor in the Olympus E-M5 shows that it is equal to the resolution of an NEX-7 sensor (or possibly beats it), it also has as high a dynamic range, and the high ISO performance is on a par right up to 6000 ISO. And of course unlike an APSC design camera, it doesn't need a great big fat lens on a small body for it to work. The world has moved on again, and what we knew yesterday we don't know today.

 

Steve

 

Somehow I just knew that a 4/3rds aficionado wouldn't be able to resist temptation for long...........

[lars_bergquist]

The reason why I would never use a APS-C SLR camera is the necessarily miserably small finder image. But an electronic finder does not labour under that restriction. And they are improving rapidly.

 

Having an M-compatible bayonet does not necessarily mean that all lenses for it have to cover an image circle of 43.2mm. There are precedents (Nikon). If the M is left as a manual focus only camera, then a line of auto-focus lenses – but manually focusable as with the S2 – could be developed for the smaller format only. If Leica decide that such a smaller format is the future for a 'Leica ethos' camera, then that would be a reasonable decision. If on the other hand there is a autofocus M 24x36mm camera being planned, well then all lenses, manual or AF, will have to cover the traditional 35mm format. Even if not, the new camera line would be backward-compatible with the traditional M lenses, provided that there is decent electronic focus confirmation (which e.g. the Fuji X-Pro 1 is unexplicably lacking).

 

But in any case, even a smaller sensor 'pro grade' camera would have to be about the size of that Fuji. And a M lens, even with some additional bulk for auto-focus, would not be absurdly large on it. Remember, with an EVF, lens intrusion in the finder field does not happen!

 

That decision is clearly momentuous. I will not even try to predict what it will be. The only thing I can say to Herr Doktor Kaufmann is, may the Force be with you. (The market forces.)

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[lars_bergquist]

Paul, I agree with you – and I have stated that conviction here, before – that the mobile phone and related imaging-capable devices are already killing the market for compact p&s cameras. So maybe the question is not, what is the lower limit for a pro-grade camera? but what is the lower limit for a credible and desirable camera, period?

 

And I do still think that this limit lies somewhere in the vicinity of the APS-C size.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[pgk]

And I do still think that this limit lies somewhere in the vicinity of the APS-C size.

Yes, I agree - just like 35mm was the right format at the right time, APS-C might prove to be the same. The trade off is high enough image quality (controlled by technology, quality control issues and physical limits) against cost and usability and APS-C may offer the appropriate compromise.

 

Frustratingly I think that we have seen '35mm' cameras 'bloat' again over the years - I remember the OM-1 showing that 'bloat' was not necessary for film cameras - and whilst smaller than the 'pro' cameras, D800s/5D2s are again oversize given that (admittedly not an SLR) the M9 shows that this increased size is not necessary - 35mm format digital SLR cameras still need to reduce in size IMHO.

 

Their lenses remain an interesting problem though because we are still working in a legacy period with many lenses still being far larger than they need to be and many remaining 'multi-format'.

 

And as you say it is the viewfinder on APS-C which is still an issue and an electronic finder may deal with this idc. Interesting times.

[plasticman]

Paul, I agree with you – and I have stated that conviction here, before – that the mobile phone and related imaging-capable devices are already killing the market for compact p&s cameras.

 

I think the effect will resonate all the way up the chain: if camera manufacturers must price their niche 'full-frame' offerings to a tiny segment of dedicated hobbyists and professionals, the cost will be much greater than the market could possibly bear.

[250swb]

Somehow I just knew that a 4/3rds aficionado wouldn't be able to resist temptation for long...........

 

Well you know how it is, people are only construing scenario's from what they know now, with today's technology, inventing imaginary parts bin cameras. But it is self evident tomorrows cameras won't be using today's technology, so somebody has to tweak their argument and wake them up.

 

Steve

[alw]

By what definition of "publishable" and "professional"? Lately I'm seeing lots of iPhone-4 images published, shot by guys who call themselves professionals.

 

Me too, and I´ve liked what I´ve seen.

[jonoslack]

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.

 

Hi Lars

an interesting post . . . but you seem to have forgotten about 4/3 - assuming that you like the 4:3 aspect ratio, the difference in size between 4/3 and APS-c is really not very great (13mm vs 15.6mm) - there's absolutely no question that 4/3 can and does produce many many thousands of published prints.

 

Micro 4/3 has the added advantage of allowing for noticeably smaller lenses than APSc (because of the reduced image circle).

 

It seems to be odd to pose such a well argued thesis and then miss out the system which is clearly the most mature of the new breed of cameras, with the best lens selection as well.

 

From my perspective the advantages of 35mm is that whereas once it was the sweetspot with respect to miniaturisation, now it's the sweetspot with respect to DOF control - of course, this is very subjective and arguable.

 

From the perspective of a Leica user, the problem with the M8 (and other APS-c cameras) was not the sensor size, but the inability to use lots of the lenses I want to use at their designed focal length - sure, this is roundabouts and swings.

 

I came to your conclusion about 2 years ago - and apart from my Leica kit I rather standardised on APS/c - just recently however, with the advent of the Olympus EP-3 and now the OMD, I'm changing my mind.

 

Of course, my personal preferences aren't the point, but I feel you missed out an important piece of the jigsaw puzzle in your argument.

 

More to the point, there is surely room for all formats, It is noticeable that if you frequent Fuji or NEX user forums they are all shouting and hollering for a full frame version . . . . . . .

 

So, perhaps this particular theory belongs more in the graveyard than on the church door

 

(sorry, no offence meant, I simply couldn't resist it!)

 

all the very best

[Jeff S]

From the perspective of a Leica user, the problem with the M8 (and other APS-c cameras) was not the sensor size

 

M8 is APS-H.

 

My thoughts post #14.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lars_bergquist]

Jono – Certainly MFT and APS-C are contenders in the same field. And to look back at film days: There was not only the half-format 18x24mm but also the Robot format of 24x24mm. Lots of people found these useful.

 

But remember that time is not standing still at the mobile phone end either. I suspect that MFT will sooner or later begin to be squeezed from below. Not that I think that I will ever see a phone with that kind of IQ, but there is the matter of perceptible difference. There is also ergonomics. How small can a camera be that you will work with for maybe hours?

 

Finally, for those of us that pin hopes on Leica, they have said a firm 'no' to four-thirds. And who knows, maybe the Gnomes are listening in?

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[pgk]

From my perspective the advantages of 35mm is that whereas once it was the sweetspot with respect to miniaturisation, now it's the sweetspot with respect to DOF control - of course, this is very subjective and arguable.

 

More to the point, there is surely room for all formats.

I would be broadly in agreement with you on the first point - simply put.

 

On the second; whilst there is currently room for all formats, I would conjecture that as technologies progress there may be reduced markets for pure imaging devices with their specific lens requirements, which may in term potentially lead to a reduction in formats simply because of the economics of supporting a plethora of different lens systems.