Interview with Andreas Kaufmann on Handelsblatt.com

[aXs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

re: "Alles wird gut"/ "All will be good" article in Leica's LFI-magazine 2/2007 and

IDC Corporate Publishing GmbH (Frank P. Lohstöter)

 

Michael,

 

Have you recently re-read this article?

 

Surely you can't be making an argument that the LFI-magazine has not been Leica's in-house magazine since 1948.

 

For over 60 years LFI-magazine remains the "newspaper of record" - internationally - for all matters regarding "Leica Camera". And even published advertisements and announcements automatically "go on record" as having the specific approval of "Leica Camera".

 

In a similiar way, Leica's financial/banking matters are published in Germany's "newspapers of record", the Handelsblatt and Financial Times Deutschland.

 

Since only a few years has LFI-magazine been "outsourced" to IDC Corporate Publishing GmbH (Frank P. Lohstöter) and he is the same Editor-in-Chief of LFI-magazine.

 

...And still, neither can this article be construed as an official statement by Leica... nor is LFI an “in-house magazine“... its special relationship with Leica [Leica Camera AG, Solms] notwithstanding... if you intend to make an argument...

 

"Alles wird gut" LFI-magazine 2/2007 - perhaps other members of the Leica-forum should re-read the article (German/international editions) and put it into context of today's customer's complaints.

 

 

Axel

 

Axel Sanders

[jaapv]

How did this thread get sidetracked into a discussion on the editorial independence of LFI. :confused: That should be in a separate thread.

Having said that, I don't care two hoots who is ultimately responsible. I find LFI informative and interesting, but it is a pity that Leica discontinued their Newsletter. In that case the difference between opinion and official statement would be more clear.

[sdai]

I am sure now Dr. Kaufmann is baffled ... this is not the type of response he is expecting from an interview.

 

I agree, Michael and LFI have done their job very well ... if you don't trust one source, pick up another.

[mjh]

I believe Leica when they say it was simply not picked up in the beta testing. After all, it was summer in southern Germany, not many persons wear synthetics there, days were long, not much flash, so maybe the situation did not arise often enough to attract attention.

Either that or a miscommunication between R&D and Marketing. But a honest mistake, not a conspiracy.

It might have been wise for Mr. Kaufmann to have said one sentence on the subject in the interview, if only to lay this ghost of the past to rest.

If there should ever be a book written on the development of the M8, from an insider’s point of view, it would make for an interesting read, for this and many other reasons – something along the lines of “The Soul of a New Machine“ by Tracy Kidder. But I suppose that won’t happen.

 

It all started when they were deciding on what kind of IR blocking filter to use. They opted against an interference filter, that, while quite thin, would have been very effective in suppressing infrared – because it would also have caused reflections of visible light and maybe also because its transmission curve does depend on the incident angle. They also decided against a sufficiently thick absorption filter, as refraction by the filter would have resulted in unsharp images. So it would have to be a thin absorption filter, there was no other choice left. It was a trade-off, preventing insuperable problems at the expense of having to deal with another potential issue that appeared to manageable at least. Given the circumstances, it was the best decision they could have made. Were Leica’s engineers aware of the IR issue? They would have to be. When you decide against both a thin interference and a thick absorption filter, both effective against IR, there’s no way you could not have been aware of the looming danger.

 

We don’t know exactly when this decision was made, but there’s a clue. The absorption filter is an integral part of the sensor assembly and Kodak is offering no alternative version of the sensor without this filter, so it’s likely that the decision was made early on, during the sensor design stage. At this point, Kodak might have simulated the combined effect of the IR filter and the Bayer filters, but I think all Kodak could have said for certain then was something like the claims that are now in the sensor’s spec sheet, namely that IR will be reduced to less than 5 to 10 percent, depending on the wavelength. Less than 5 to 10 percent – would this represent a problem? It isn’t easy to tell in advance, as it depends on the IR reflectivity of typical subjects, on the sensor’s native IR sensitivity, and on the spectral distribution of typical light sources within the near infrared. Apparently, Leica’s engineers chose to believe there wouldn’t be any serious problems. And that wasn’t an entirely unreasonable assumption. After all, there had been precedents: Kodak had used a relatively weak absorption filter in the DCS Pro SLR/n themselves (and for similar reasons), as had Nikon in the D100 and D70. They all had got away with it, even when images taken with the D70 would sometimes exhibit the dreaded magenta blacks.

 

So Leica went on designing the camera and building prototypes. At some point, they will have got a version that could actually take pictures and store raw data. In early 2007, LFI got an M8 that saved uncompressed raw files – not in any particular file format, but as a simple memory dump. Something like this camera will have been used internally to develop the image processing algorithms to be implemented in firmware later. At that point, still many months before the camera’s release, they might have noticed there was something wrong. But the raw sensor data were in the the sensor’s own idiosyncratic color space and couldn’t readily be interpreted. If some development version of the image processing software did yield images that looked kind of odd, there was no easy way to tell whether some colour space conversion had gone wrong, the white balance was off (and most likely, it was mostly off back then), or that indeed the sensor did show an unhealthy amount of infrared sensitivity. Of course, since they must have been aware of potential issues, they should have done some stress testing against problematic subjects and lighting conditions, to make sure that everything was fine despite the thin absorption filter. But it doesn’t look like they did.

 

Shortly before the M8’s introduction, the evidence was mounting that the IR issue was quite real. And there was still time to avoid the disaster, just by announcing frankly that yes, they did succeed in building a digital rangefinder camera – and a mighty fine camera indeed –, but that it required using an IR-blocking filter in front of the lens. Only for some reason, Leica – some influential people at Leica anyway –, had already hypnotized themselves into believing there wouldn’t and couldn’t be any serious problem. At most, there would have to be a minor tweak to the firmware, some fix to the while balance algorithm maybe, and everything would be alright. For all I know, they were completely honest in that mistaken belief.

 

We can only speculate as to how this could have happened. After the engineers had decided against strong IR-blocking filters – and for perfectly valid reasons –, they should have started pursuing a Plan B involving external filters, even when it wasn’t yet clear those filters were needed. But they didn’t. Maybe this was because they simply didn’t want to believe this might turn out to be necessary. Because the filter solution, while perfectly workable, is kind of a kludge. It isn’t elegant. It’s not what you want to deliver if you are Leica. And it kind of takes the fun out of the development work (and as I said, I believe the decision was made at an early step within the development schedule) if you have to believe that that’s what you will deliver, eventually. So you find it a comforting thought that the infrared sensitivity might not actually represent a problem, that it might go unnoticed. That’s what you want to believe, and thus what you choose to believe.

 

Of course, this is all just idle speculation. The actual course of affairs might have been different. And maybe we will never know.

[stunsworth]

Michael, that certainly seems a reasonable explanation, though as you say we'll probably never know. I would find it very difficult to believe that no one at Leica was aware of the IR problem prior to the camera's launch.

[mjh]

Surely you can't be making an argument that the LFI-magazine has not been Leica's in-house magazine since 1948.

This is getting tedious, but once and for all: LFI is not nor has it ever been Leica’s “in-house magazine”. Neither since the time IDC took over LFI, nor before, when it was published by Umschau Verlag. LFI is an independent publication and it doesn’t receive any payments from Leica (except for advertisements, obviously). If you disagree, maybe you should take it up with Frank P. Lohstöter, the editor and publisher of LFI (who, just like me, is wondering why anyone should spread misrepresentations about the relationship between LFI and Leica).

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm sure it's a great learning experience ... one can't have too many good choices when only off-the-shelf components are available. For a project like this ... you'll never want judgement to be made by vendors or subcontractors.

 

So Kodak handled the core component, and Jenoptik worked on source code?

[mjh]

I'm sure it's a great learning experience ... one can't have too many good choices when only off-the-shelf components are available.

The sensor wasn’t off-the-shelf; it was designed specifically for the M8.

[aXs]

Michael, (mjh)

 

What you have just described is known as a "branded publication". A magazine and/or online-service - featuring and displaying trademarks and servicemarks of a well-known company.

 

...but once and for all...LFI [magazine] is not ... nor has it ever been Leica’s “in-house magazine”...

 

From your stand point, (if you care to answer), what are the main differences between a "branded publication" and a corporate house magazine? Do consumers really understand the differences?

 

Oh, and regarding possible "misrepresentations", why not re-read Leica Camera's annual reports and investor relations information for banks (as Olaf has already commented).

 

Axel

 

Axel Sanders

[Kasimir]

@ mjh: excellent interpretation. Thank You.

[bill]

Tell me Axel, are you still planning to "grow with the zeitgeist" and institute your "Innovations Inspired by Leica" event, or are you having more fun baiting Olaf and Michael now...? They have given you courteous and sensible answers over and over again; why not leave it at that?

 

Just curious.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[larry]

Michael, (mjh)

 

What you have just described is known as a "branded publication". A magazine and/or online-service - featuring and displaying trademarks and servicemarks of a well-known company.

 

Axel

 

Axel Sanders

 

 

Axel,

 

Sorry, but Michael is correct. I'm a magazine editor and I've been in the business for 20 years, so I'm quite familiar with various types of publications. LFI is much like MacWorld magazine -- it's exclusively about Macs, but Apple has no financial or editorial control. In-house publications, such as Subaru's Drive magazine (which despite its corporate ties, is very good) are controlled by the company. As to whether consumers can tell the difference, that depends on how descerning the consumer is and if the magazine is clear in its disclosure.

 

Larry

[redfalo]

Michael, thanks for this very insightful post. Excellent information.

 

Jaap is absolutely right: We shouln´t discuss the strenghts and weaknesses of LFI in this thread. (I have do apologize that I´m partly responsible for this abberation...).

[earleygallery]

Axel, what exactly is your point? You keep asking 'have you re read this or that' but I just don't understand what it is you're trying to get at.

 

This years Leica One Challenge is in Krakow (not an 'official' Leica event, totally independent as it happens) do you want to take over the organisation of it?

[JeffWright]

Last week I met Andreas Kaufmann for an interview in Solms which is published today on Handelsblatt.com. We just put an english version online: http://www.handelsblatt.com/news/default_200038_1401865.aspx

 

Yours

Olaf

 

Thanks for linking this. Plans for the R system seem to get more vague as time goes on. The persistent refusal of Leica to make a clear commitment to the R system means that I will abandon it while the gear still has resale value. I can't afford to have tens of thousands of dollars tied up in gear with no future.

[mooky]

Braindeadmac,,,,,Are you sure about that??? The R system - especially the lenses will always have value. Only a few lucky ones have the real scoop on the R system, and in Kaufmann's comments from last Fall, he was more detailed albeit brief. I believe they understand we have the expectation of compatibility for our lenses.

 

I took the interview as one that was leaning more towards the M system, because it's been the subject of late with the update and of course with Lee's departure. It seems that whatever they are up to, they just want it kept under-wraps. I will be disappointed if they show nothing at Photokina,,,,

[JeffWright]

Braindeadmac,,,,,Are you sure about that??? The R system - especially the lenses will always have value. Only a few lucky ones have the real scoop on the R system, and in Kaufmann's comments from last Fall, he was more detailed albeit brief. I believe they understand we have the expectation of compatibility for our lenses.

 

I took the interview as one that was leaning more towards the M system, because it's been the subject of late with the update and of course with Lee's departure. It seems that whatever they are up to, they just want it kept under-wraps. I will be disappointed if they show nothing at Photokina,,,,

 

No, I'm not at all sure...but I disagree that the equipment will always have value....The prices of used equipment have slowly fallen since discontinuation of the DMR. The R system lacks the same collectible status of the M system, and the outmoded equipment doesn't really hold it's value so well.

 

If Leica were truly committed to R system users, they would publish a complete roadmap...or come up with a way to work with Imacon/Hasselblad to make another run of DMR backs. Instead, we are left with rumor and speculation. The current corporate approach of "no comment" just seems inconsiderate and lackadaisical to me.

[jrgeoffrion]

Thanks for linking this. Plans for the R system seem to get more vague as time goes on. The persistent refusal of Leica to make a clear commitment to the R system means that I will abandon it while the gear still has resale value. I can't afford to have tens of thousands of dollars tied up in gear with no future.

 

I agree with BrainDeadMac here. When asked if the old R lenses will be compatible with the new DSLR, the answer was:

 

I´m sorry but I won´t comment on this topic today.

 

From a business standpoint, there is no reason not to AT LEAST say that the old lenses will not work.

 

Saying nothing increases uncertainty > Increased uncertainty depresses pre-owned pricing > Depressed pre-owned pricing means a greater pre-owned vs. new differential > Greater differential means less new lens sales.

 

So, why not say anything... Draw your own conclusions...

 

Anyone wants to buy my R lenses -- they are all "mint" or "like new"?

[JeffWright]

I agree with BrainDeadMac here. When asked if the old R lenses will be compatible with the new DSLR, the answer was:

 

 

 

From a business standpoint, there is no reason not to AT LEAST say that the old lenses will not work.

 

Saying nothing increases uncertainty > Increased uncertainty depresses pre-owned pricing > Depressed pre-owned pricing means a greater pre-owned vs. new differential > Greater differential means less new lens sales.

 

So, why not say anything... Draw your own conclusions...

 

Anyone wants to buy my R lenses -- they are all "mint" or "like new"?

 

LOL. I already bought one of your R lenses JR. And it was like new....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

QUOTE

Handelsblatt: Compatibility is a question which moves R users in particular. Will the old R lenses be compatible?

Andreas Kaufmann: I'm sorry but I won't comment on this topic today.

Handelsblatt: Why are you making such a secret out of this?

Andreas Kaufmann: I am not fond of announcing things at such an early stage. I'm convinced of what we're developing right now but the products are not ready for the market yet. We want to be able to stand behind the new product completely. It shall more than satisfy the needs of our customers.

UNQUOTE

 

Free translation: The R10 will have a new mount but the adapter rings will be different for each lens and will cost more than a nikanopus lens alone so we do our best to help lens prices drop on the s/h market so far.