Sizing Up the Future

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

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?

 

And they have now ruled out APS-C because the only solutions are plug ugly, so where next?

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

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

[UliWer]

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

 

Even if a new APS-C camera line would be backward compatible with traditional M lenses, the combination would just be a mixed bag. The new camera line would change the field of view of any Leica lens produced for more than 80 years. Even if lenses older than say 40 years don't play a big role in the market for Leica cameras, the present lens line is crucial for Leica. You may say that every other producer makes lenses for their cameras, but for Leica it will always be essential to make cameras for their lenses. I do not think that customers would easily accept if their 50s would serve them only as 75s and you can add any other focal length and find the same problem.

 

Leica already has two completely different lens lines: for the S-System and for the M-System. Their production capacity is already overstretched for both of them. A completely new APS-C-fitting lens line would even go far beyond their capacities if they gave up the M-lenses. Do you really think, that we'll see a decision in near future which tells us, M-lenses are no longer produced, go for our new APS-C-line, or go to the second hand market, if you look for a Leica lens?

 

The market forces already told Leica that they couldn't live with the APS-H M8. They told them as well since 1925, that "full frame" or bigger is exactly their place - as it has been since 1925. I don't believe that Mr. Kaufmann would ignore those market forces for a second.

[Ellie]

The most logical (to me at least ) would be a basic 24x36mm EVIL..but.. with one or two APS-C sized AF lenses to keep the size and weight down, portrait or horizontal layout could be selected in the menu. The point would be that all M and R lenses could also be used for full frame pictures

[Jeff S]

This recent post by E. Puts offers some points relevant to this thread, including the notion that some modern DSLRs are akin to MF in the digital age.

 

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

Well, Mr Puts and I seem to think on parallel tracks. And we agree on the conclusion: 24x36mm is now part of the medium format scene.

 

Remember, just as there are several 'medium formats' (sensor sizes) now, there were different medium formats then: 4 1/2 x 6, 6 x 6, 6 x 7, 6 x 9 – and there were also some 'quasi-panoramic' wide angle cameras that used even more film. And I have used quite a number of them.

 

Maybe the jury is still out on what the 'new 35mm format' will be. But one thing is certain: It will not be 35mm.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[lars_bergquist]

Uli, a 24x36mm mirrorless EVF camera to take M lenses (+) would certainly be a very interesting camera indeed. And it would make a great splash – in the media and on the web. That dwindling group of people who sit on cherished R lenses will be overjoyed too.

 

But would it help Leica to break into those 1%? That would be decided by (a) size, and ( price. Maybe the price would be less of a problem than we think. The relative prices of APS-C and 'FF' sensors may not be directly proportional to area, and the rest of the camera may not differ too much, perhaps. I think that sensor prices are coming down in the long run.

 

But there is this problem: M lenses, and off-brand lenses (though maybe not R lenses) will have to be focused at working aperture. This is OK with tele lenses, which are mostly used at or close to full aperture, but will you undertake to focus a 21mm lens that way? Yes you can focus a 1:3.5 21mm lens wide open on a good plain matte screen – I have regularly done that – but is any foreseeable EVF as distinct as a good matte screen? And stopped down? Will focus peaking do that trick? SLR cameras since the late 1950's did that by automatic aperturing.

 

And as Maynard Keynes pointed out, in the long run we are all dead. And I will by statistical probability be dead rather sooner than some of you. There's an interesting interplay between technology, economy and marketing here. We live in interesting times (which is a great misfortune, according to a Chinese proverb, and the Chinese should know.)

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Umm, the NEX does that already, and I think the Ricoh as well.

 

The screen adjusts, and the focus peaking works as normal.

[250swb]

And stopped down? Will focus peaking do that trick? SLR cameras since the late 1950's did that by automatic aperturing.

 

 

The EVF automatically increases its gain (gets brighter) so it hardly matters what aperture you have the lens set at.

 

Steve

[lars_bergquist]

IkarusJohn and 250swb, I did not refer to the screen going dark. That was not the problem. I know about electronic viewfinders – I own a couple of them! The problem is that with a very short lens, depth of field increases, and unsharp areas become sharper, especially when you stop the lens down, so that it becomes difficult to locate the plane of best sharpness.

 

That is a problem with a matte screen too, but this does still have much better definition than any EVF, so it is possible to cope.

 

On the other hand, I am old enough to have used SLR cameras before automatic aperturing, and focusing them was a real p.i.t.a.!

 

The old man from the Age of the Kine-Exakta

[jonoslack]

But there is this problem: M lenses, and off-brand lenses (though maybe not R lenses) will have to be focused at working aperture. This is OK with tele lenses, which are mostly used at or close to full aperture, but will you undertake to focus a 21mm lens that way? Yes you can focus a 1:3.5 21mm lens wide open on a good plain matte screen – I have regularly done that – but is any foreseeable EVF as distinct as a good matte screen? And stopped down? Will focus peaking do that trick? SLR cameras since the late 1950's did that by automatic aperturing.

 

HI Lars

This is not a problem, it's a positive benefit - it means you have a permanent depth of field preview, the EVF gains up so, it's always as bright as you need. IMHO an EVF is better than a matte screen - and if you need more accurate focusing then focus peaking is better still.

SLR cameras HAD to do it with automatic aperture - it's simply not needed with an EVF, and therefore no advantage.

 

I've spent the last week in cornwall shooting a little Olympus OMD with Leica R lenses, with zero focusing difficulties and splendid results - so much more satisfying that trying to make R lenses work on an SLR.

 

Forget all this APSc / 4/3 rubbish - lets have a full frame Leica with an EVF please (but wait a bit until I've collected a few more R lenses to go on it ).

 

I don't dispute that we are in the realm of MF for quality - but as long as we still have the simplicity and smaller size of 35mm, that must be an advantage.

 

all the best

[lars_bergquist]

Jono, I am glad to hear that you did not have any focusing difficulties. So maybe I won't have them either – with focus peaking. But without it, in those Fuji cameras I own or have tried, visual focusing on a plain EVF without any kind of focusing assistance, is well nigh impossible and would have been so even with lenses with a decent focusing ring. And these EVFs are not substandard in any way.

 

And while a 24x36 EVF camera with interchangeable lenses (taking not only my M lenses but also much of my disused OM glass) is a wonderful thought, especially if I can afford it, such a camera would cannibalize M sales. Even R sales did that, especially in Germany, and remember, poor old M very nearly died from being eaten alive! For a couple of years in the 1970's, the M was actually discontinued. Only some Byzantine intra-Leitz arm and nose twisting across the Atlantic led to its resurrection with the M4-2.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[rosuna]

Uli, a 24x36mm mirrorless EVF camera to take M lenses (+) would certainly be a very interesting camera indeed. And it would make a great splash – in the media and on the web. That dwindling group of people who sit on cherished R lenses will be overjoyed too.

 

But would it help Leica to break into those 1%? That would be decided by (a) size, and ( price. Maybe the price would be less of a problem than we think. The relative prices of APS-C and 'FF' sensors may not be directly proportional to area, and the rest of the camera may not differ too much, perhaps. I think that sensor prices are coming down in the long run.

 

 

The problem of such a camera is technical. You need a 24x36 sensor able to suport continuous operation for supporting the EVF. This poses problems of power drain and heat disipation.

 

There are 24x36 sensor able to support live view, but full time operaton is a different feat. We have goog signals, however. The new Canon Cinema 4k reflex camera has a new sensor of the type desired, and Sony will present a new 24x36 reflex with translucent mirror soon. But notice these are large cameras, so there are technical problems to be solved by Leica yet.

 

If this limiting factor is real, a M10 camera (classical rangefinder) with CMOS sensor is a possibility for the next Photokina, and the EVF camera would be presented later. The priority is just the contrary, but...

 

The mistake, in any case, would be betting for an APS-C mirrorless camera. The APS-C is not "the standard" size among mirrorlesses (Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax... do not play there) and, anyway, Leica is not good competing constrained by standards (R system...).

[lars_bergquist]

Rosuna, are you plumping for a smaller sensor size than APS-C?

 

Two concerns are speaking against. The first one is of course the sensor. Yes, you can cram in an incredible number of pixels on a small sensor, like MFT. But as long as we are speaking of same-generation technology, the trade-offs are the same: More pixels = smaller pixels. Smaller pixels = less dynamic range and a more unfavourable signal/noise ratio.

 

But the other one is the lens. A MFT sensor is just 1/4 of a 24x36 one, meaning that the diagonal is just half. So detail projected by the lens on the sensor has to be jammed into a smaller space. A detail that has an extent of 1mm on a 24x26 sensor will occupy just 0.5mm on MFT.

 

So if, say, 50 line pairs per millimeter is adequate for representing that detail in 24x36, 100lpmm are required in MFT. Oh, you may say, there are lenses that can resolve 100 lines.

 

Yes, under ideal circumstances. So this lens has 40% contrast at 50 lp/mm. But the target is a stark black-and-white stripe pattern, and we do not walk around photographing USAF targets. How much contrast will we have here with a realistic subject? Maybe 20%. Now how high would the contrast be at 100lp/mm? Will it register? Probably not.

 

With a smaller sensor, as with a smaller piece of film, we lose detail. A small sensor camera may, like a film one producing a half-format Tri-X negative, produce an image that will look sharp, because edge sharpness – the delineation of large and medium-size objects – will be good. But more detail will be lacking, the more sensor or film acreage we lose. I know – I once played around with still cameras that took 16mm film. And there was 126 film, and 110 film ...

 

The resolution limit of lenses exists, basically, because of the physical nature of light. Both the actual wavelength and diffraction play their parts. Microlithographic lenses for IC production work in the ultraviolet only, because longer wavelengths cannot resolve the fine patterns. So we cannot hope that the Technology Fairy will do much for us.

 

Where is the critical point where the rising curve of convenience intersects the falling curve of image quality? It will be different for different people – the majority are OK with their mobile phones. But there was a kind of consensus once, and there will be one tomorrow.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[rosuna]

Rosuna, are you plumping for a smaller sensor size than APS-C?

 

 

No... I think Leica should be careful in the development process of a new system, and do it on 24x36 size (Leica format).

 

The APS-C is good for the X cameras... if they stop being profitable Leica may stop selling them. A system implies a long term commitment with the users, and a roapmap for future developments.

[lars_bergquist]

Maybe there are so many very rich people in China that Leica can build a long term profitability on them just continuing as before. But I doubt that long term. The fashion market is a fickle one.

 

To survive, Leica will have to break out of its restricted niche. They will in fact have to regain their old niche: Young creative people who are deeply interested in photography. In the past they could recruit at the less affluent end of that niche by means of a flourishing second-hand market. This is not to any extent possible in the digital age (and have you seen the current used-gear prices?) They have to target it, or die.

 

That means new and different products. New and different customers. And they won't do that by doing business as usual – meaning, inter alia, 24x36mm medium format cameras.

 

The old man from the 35mm Age

[IkarusJohn]

Umm, the NEX does that already, and I think the Ricoh as well.

 

The screen adjusts, and the focus peaking works as normal.

 

Edit - sorry, this post was delayed for some reason. Lars raised the issue of focussing wide open, then stopping down for exposure. Because live view adjusts its brightness, you focus at the selected aperture. Having to focus wide is an optical view finder issue; not a problem with EVF.

[lars_bergquist]

Umm, the NEX does that already, and I think the Ricoh as well.

 

The screen adjusts, and the focus peaking works as normal.

 

Edit - sorry, this post was delayed for some reason. Lars raised the issue of focussing wide open, then stopping down for exposure. Because live view adjusts its brightness, you focus at the selected aperture. Having to focus wide is an optical view finder issue; not a problem with EVF.

 

It is not about a darker or brighter finder. It's not an optical finder issue either. It is a depth of field issue. If you are content with the bare fact that the object you want to focus on is somewhere inside the depth of field (however you define that, and assuming that this definition agrees with what the camera thinks is sharp) and ignore the fact that all objects within the presumed d.o.f. are not equally sharp – that most of them are just not too unsharp – then you are in effect zone-focusing. That is okay for many purposes. For some of us, it is not okay always.

 

The focused old man

[jdsheepdog]

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 the photograph is good enough, it does matter what camera takes it. iPhones can do a remarkable job for what they are, and they are more likely to be at the scene of a photographic opportunity of the "Ship runs into bridge" type than an M9. If the iPhone picture is then sold, then the photographer is a professional, like it or not. To decry a picture because of the camera that made it is simply snobbery.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lars_bergquist]

If the photograph is good enough, it does matter what camera takes it. iPhones can do a remarkable job for what they are, and they are more likely to be at the scene of a photographic opportunity of the "Ship runs into bridge" type than an M9. If the iPhone picture is then sold, then the photographer is a professional, like it or not. To decry a picture because of the camera that made it is simply snobbery.

Ah yes. The ship runs into a bridge and a kid with an iPhone happens to be present. He sells a picture.

 

Now he's a professional photographer for life. It seems that with your inane definition of professionalism, you don't even have to keep up the performance. Pictures from people who make their living by non-photographic means are being 'published' in droves every day by newspapers, TV stations, whatever. And everyone who is remunerated for it, however modestly, is henceforth a 'professional photographer'. Soon pretty well everyone will be a 'professional photographer'. And nobody, because the designation has lost all content.

 

And why are you so allergic to the proposal that 'professionalism' should presuppose some kind of proficiency? There seems to be a tender spot here.

 

The old man from the Age of Amateurism

[pgk]

To decry a picture because of the camera that made it is simply snobbery.

True enough for certain genre's of photography. I've not seen many 'professional' landscape shot on iPhones as yet though;). Horses for courses. Low quality images will sell if their content makes them salable - essentially news shots I would say.