Erwin on M8, DMR, Canon (new today)

[jtdnyc]

http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c032.html

 

"For the time being then, Leica is again betting on the M-series (in particular

the M8, the M7 and MP are in an identity crisis partly by the a la carte

program, that tried to redefine an instrument as a gadget) as the main product

for the premium market. The fate of the DMR shows quite clearly that the times

are changing faster and more radical than can be imagined. A company that

cannot translate its technological superiority into premium products that

generate not only passion but also sales, is doomed. The market is relentless

and historical values are only a footnote in today's battles for market

supremacy. Leica has the most difficult task to rebuild a ship while is in

sailing in a storm."

[bob_lazzarini]

Here's Bill Pierce's take on the M8<p>

<b>Nuts & Bolts: Taking Pictures vs. Making Pictures</b><br>

<i>A long time ago, in the age of film, I wrote,<br>

"Rangefinders take pictures, and Single-Lens Reflexes make pictures."</i><p>

 

<a href="http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0702/pierce.html"><b>HERE!</b></a>

 

<p>Cheers!

[x-ray]

No surprise here. I mentioned on RFF that there was nothing cutting edge about the M8 and it seems as though Erwin sees it the same way.

 

Leica has to do more in terms of meeting current expectations in performance, features and pro service. No longer will they be aboe to survive on name alone. they're going to have to become a cutting edge company again if they want to survive.

 

What do I think will have to happen to save leica short of a miracle, Pro body that's dust and moisture sealed, quiter mechanics, more AE features, lower price, full frame sensor of atleast 16MP. True professional service luike Nikon NPS and Canon CPS with priority to the pro. Oh yes, issues like noise, magenta IR sensitivity, buffer limit, write speed banding and on and on must be corrected.

 

Unfortunately I don't think leica has it in them to do this. Very sad!

[carbon_dragon]

Ever since Leica became as much a niche luxury item as it is a camera, Leica has really had two conflicting goals. Goal 1 - produce a great photographic tool for a fair price. Goal 2 - produce premium jewelry-like mechanical masterpieces for collectors.

 

Pre-digital, users could justify the high cost (to some extent) by buying used and/or using them over multiple decades (My M2 is probably older than I am). In an age where cameras have more fixed lifespans (post digital) I do not know that this is viable. This leaves Leica with the M8, a quite competent photographic instrument, but priced at a cost that only the well-heeled (like collectors for instance) can afford. There are more expensive cameras than the M8, but the M8 would be relatively challenging to justify strictly on a price performance basis.

 

Now the question is, are there enough wealthy collectors and leica devoted to keep Leica alive without the more practical souls who wanted the camera mostly to take pictures with? I hope the answer is yes because I wouldn't like to see Leica go.

 

If I were Leica, I would try to find a way to allow M8 owners to swap out the transient technological parts of the M8 when better parts came available (mostly this is the sensor). It seems to me an M8 has more long term value if you know that 10 years down the line it can still be using a "current" digital sensor (even if the cost is higher because of that versatility). After all the M's are built to last to a truly incredible degree. What good is an M8 that can physically last 40 years if the sensor is obsolete in 5 or 10 years (and who knows how long the memory cards or digital interfaces it has will actually be useable on home computers)?

 

I don't think Leica will do this, so I'm very much afraid that Leica is producing a contradiction in terms -- a fine mechanical camera whose great quality is wasted because the electronics have a fairly restricted lifespan. I see it's market shrinking to a small number of devoted (and wealthy) fans until one day they're just gone. I hope I'm wrong about this.

[alex_p._schorsch]

David, could I suggest another Leica goal. Goal 3 produce premium jewelry-like mechanical masterpieces for taking photographs.

 

I also believe that sensors will "top out" soon at around 15 to 20 MP. Leica can be supplied by third parties with these large sensors and remain in the business of building fantastic lenses and chassis to go with the third party sensors. I think that Leicophiles will be happy to hold on to a 20mp camera for 10 to 20 years.

[x-ray]

I do think sensor MP count will top out but somewhere around 22-30MP. The big issue with the current M8 is it's two generations behind in features and priced at current Leica high prices. My thoughts are thate's no reason t make a digital camera that will last more than 5 or 6 years. Technology is changing in every aspect of ditial and standards are changing as well. How many kinds of memory cards, file formats and etc. have we seen in the past 7 years? Leica has entered a different world that requires different thinking now. Digital cameras are disposable now. As a professional that's been digital in the studio for 9 years I can't think of one other pro that I know that's using a camera over 3 years old. 3-5 years is aobut the life time for a top pro camera.

[mark_amos]

David, don't you think its possible that the 10 MP camera is sufficient for 40 years? Granted, the file formats have to be supported, but I have been very cautious about digital, but I've examined files from an M8, and for what I do, I don't think I need more, ever. Sure, there may someday be ultra high res CCDs that also take video or 3-d pictures or something, but as stated in the Pierce article, the M8 is a great special purpose tool that shouldn't need to compete with those other kinds of features that will develop.

 

I always like to cite the fact that my Hewlett Packard 15C calculator from 1985 is still my very best tool for fast manual calculations. I can't stand using a keyboard for that.

 

I believe your comments about Leica's challenges in the market are well said and insightful, but even though the M8 does seem to need some tweaking and continued quality control, don't you think it feels its role perfectly? The only improvement really called for is full frame, but Leica could essentially solve this with just one compact 18 f2.8 (even if heaven forbid it had to be made for just the M8) to give a very wide.

[blakley]

A lot of this thread just seems completely disconnected from reality to me.

<p>

<i>What do I think will have to happen to save leica short of a miracle, Pro body that's dust and moisture sealed, quiter mechanics, more AE features, lower price, full frame sensor of atleast 16MP.

</i><p>

All completely irrelevant and unnecessary, with the exception of sealing.

<p><i>

True professional service like Nikon NPS and Canon CPS with priority to the pro.</i>

<p>

Yes, but in this case I think all that's missing from Leica's current offering is loaner cameras and improved repair tracking, neither of which will be difficult after supply stabilizes. The actual service terms and performance are already better than Nikon in my experience.

<p>

<i>

Oh yes, issues like noise, magenta IR sensitivity, buffer limit, write speed banding and on and on must be corrected.</i>

<p>

Which is already being done.

<p><i>

Unfortunately I don't think leica has it in them to do this. Very sad!

</i><p>

Except for the unecessary techno-fetishist stuff, I think they're already doing everything except upgrading their repair program which, as I've said, I think it would be easy to do.

<p>

<i>In an age where cameras have more fixed lifespans (post digital) I do not know that this is viable.

</i><p>

We're certainly in an era of short-lifespan digital cameras. However there's good reason to question whether this era will continue, or whether it will end soon. My bet is that it will end soon, because the cameras will very soon reach the point at which further quality and functionality improvements are of marginal value, and further cost reductions are either infeasible or economically counterproductive.

<p>

<i>This leaves Leica with the M8, a quite competent photographic instrument</i><p>

Do you have one? Look <a href="http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/17063-m8-feel-good-thread.html">here</a> for quite competent work from people who do.

<p><i>but priced at a cost that only the well-heeled (like collectors for instance) can afford.

</i><p>

You mean well-heeled collectors like those who buy the Canon 1D series and the Nikon D2X? Or are people who pay the same money for those cameras "pros" instead of "collectors"?

<p>

<i>There are more expensive cameras than the M8, but the M8 would be relatively challenging to justify strictly on a price performance basis.

</i><p>

... because you think the M8's performance isn't as good as the similarly-priced competition, or because you have some additional criterion?<p>

<i>

If I were Leica, I would try to find a way to allow M8 owners to swap out the transient technological parts of the M8 when better parts came available (mostly this is the sensor).

</i>

<p>

Unlike every other camera maker in the world? This, of course, is not going to happen. And if you were Leica, you'd quickly figure out why this is a non-starter from an engineering and economic point of view.

<p><i>What good is an M8 that can physically last 40 years if the sensor is obsolete in 5 or 10 years</i><p>

What does "obsolete" mean to you here? That it doesn't work anymore? Or that there are newer better sensors available? The latter doesn't do anything to make the M8 less useful.

<p><i>(and who knows how long the memory cards or digital interfaces it has will actually be useable on home computers)?

</i><p>

Which distinguishes the M8 from all the other non-upgradeable digital cameras on the market how?

[hankg]

For those waiting for a full frame digital RF with IR filter at the sensor. Buy yourself a DSLR. The physics of the M platform preclude the possibility of that happening any time soon. The M8 is already exceeding the limits of microlens technology for wide angle lenses -note the cyan vignetting with IR filters, move the filter behind the lens and the vignetting would be much totally unmanageable. The fact is that the M wasn't designed for digital and as a digital platform it is at a severe disadvantage to SLR's. So learn to live with compromises, stick with film or get yourself a DSLR.

[carbon_dragon]

"David, don't you think its possible that the 10 MP camera is sufficient for 40 years?"

 

No. Granted there are some people still using Minox or 110 film (quite a few with Minox actually) so it's not like some people aren't happy with a "smaller" negative. And the M8's image quality is probably more than adequate for quite a lot of people. But 5-10 years down the line, no-body will make the memory cards. No computer will have an interface that lets you connect. And Leica won't be able to make the parts to repair the electronics (which is why my very nice Contax RTS 1 is unrepairable today).

 

So no they won't be satisfied because they won't be able to keep the machine in repair or get the pictures off the camera and onto their computer, not because the image quality is insufficient. Also if they can buy a digital with 20MP and ultra high dynamic range and high fidelity color (etc.) for $1000 in a decade or so that might just take a tad of satisfaction off that M8 owner too.

 

Digital has changed the rules of the game. Where my M2 with modern Leica lenses could take every bit a good a picture (maybe better) than a Nikon F5 owner (after all the F5 used the same film), with digital that quality of image quality is not an external factor (film) but rather an internal factor (electronics). No-one criticised the M7 because it couldn't compete on image quality with the Hasselblad MF rig (it wasn't a fair comparison). But now every new generation of digital camera uses an effectively larger format film. The playing field is no longer level. You just can't build a camera to last unless the whole camera can last -- otherwise the electronics becomes the M8's weakest link and brings the whole camera down to the same level as any other digital camera.

 

If Leica could make the camera at $1500 or even $2000 then the whole equation changes. At that price (admittedly still high for mere mortals) you don't have to amortize the purchase over decades to justify the expense of buying it. But at $5000 it has to be held to a higher standard.

[hankg]

The M8 is already exceeding the limits of microlens technology (note the cyan vignetting with the IR filter). Make the sensor full frame and or move the sensor behind the lens and the camera would be unusable. The M platform is at a severe disadvantage to SLR's when it comes to digital. So if you are waiting for a full frame, filterless Digital M you might want to consider sticking with film or buying yourself an DSLR. If you want a digital M in the near future be prepared to compromise. That is unless you have developed some revolutionary technology to get around the physics of the M mount.

[hankg]

oops sorry for the double post

[jtk]

It'd be interesting to know how many new M8 users actually do anything professional-like with them. From what we've seen online, most users apparently think a wildly expensive digicam will make their snaps of kiddies, homeless, and scenery more valuable.

 

Someone here commented on "making" Vs "taking" photos. Professionals MAKE, amateurs take. By definition.

 

It's hard to imagine someone who shoots models or weddings or portraits, or covers sports, or illustrates products or food in order to pay the bills, wanting a $5000 device whose digital output isn't clearly superior to that of a $1000 Canon, not to mention a $3000 Canon, and whose available and affordable lenses don't come close to serving many contemporary professional purposes.

 

Granted some Leica lenses are incredibly sharp, but what art director, designer, executive or bride really cares Vs Canon L ? On the other hand, they're all likely to be sensitive to weird color...

[jtk]

Erwin's a good writer.

[hankg]

99% of the images you see online taken with any camera are amatuer snaps. Canon makes far more money off of well heeled amatuers with their full frame line then they do from pros. So on that score Leica is not so different.

 

Rangefinders are no longer mainstream cameras. They appeal to a specialized niche. In terms of image quality, I shoot professionally and the quality of the M8 images meet or exceed what I'm getting from my Canon 1Ds. The film Leica's were never used by fashion or tabletop product shooters, they were used for documentary available light work. I think the M8 fills the bill for that type of work. Its nice to finally have a digital option for what the M excells at.

[nels]

<i>"99% of the images you see online taken with any camera are amatuer snaps."</i><p>

 

Yes, indeed. All Magnum photographers, VII agency snappers, the countless amateurs from Steve Pyke to Ralph Gibson, and everyone in between...all amateurs. Behold the mighty Professional Hank!

[runkel]

With the M8 and the DMR, Leica demonstrates that its strategy is not to put forward a digital system to compete for market share among new buyers of digital systems. Rather, these products target buyers who are already invested in Leica lenses. The hobbling compromises of the M8 were only necessary because Leica decided to target the low-hanging fruit, its existing user base. It often make sense to go after low-hanging fruit, but maybe not if doing so limits your ability to go after the bulk of the remaining fruit in due course.

 

Leica could have designed its digital rangefinder camera to have DSLR-like sensor clearances, avoiding the M8's IR issue, etc., but that camera would not have attracted a captive customer base with big investments in Leica glass and fetishistic devotion to the classic M form factor. And the buy-in price for this hypothetical ground-up-designed digital rangefinder system, with lenses, would likely have been prohibitive even compared to the nicest Canon setups.

 

The point is that Leica has already made its choice to remain a niche player. Quite possibly that was the only choice available to it.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Hank, posting that twice doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

The cyan corners are an effect of the angular response of dichroic filters. Rangefinder wide angle lenses (there are no cyan corner problems with normals or telephotos) are either symmetrical or mild retrofocus designs. In a symmetrical design, the angle of incidence of light on the filter is exactly the same with the filter in front of the lens as it is with the filter behind the lens (it doesn't matter if the filter is near the rear element or at the sensor). If the lens is retrofocus, the exit pupil is forward of the rear node, and the angle of incidence for a filter behind the lens is actually less (closer to perpendicular) than it is for a filter in front of the lens, so the filter behind the lens causes less severe cyan corners, not more more severe).

 

The 12mm Helier is the most severe example that I know of. With a 12mm rear node and a 25mm exit pupil (I know of no rangefinder lens with an exit pupil closer than 25mm to the film plane) the cyan corners would be dramatically improved by putting the filter behind the lens. With the filter in front of the lens, the most severe angle you encounter on a 1.3x crop camera is 54 degrees from perpendicular, on a 12mm lens (do you want me to show the math? The photo.net community typically seem allergic to math). The most severe angle of incidence for a filter behind the lens (either at the rear element of the lens or at the sensor itself) is 34 degrees from perpendicular, a lot less of a problem than 56 degrees.

 

A big part of the M8's IR problem is that they used a rather antiquated IR filter. Although this 0.5mm thick filter is considerably thicker than the 0.3mm filters that are common on modern DSLRs (yes, the Leica thin filter spiel is just that, a spiel) they didn't use a very good glass. The Leica filter came from Kyocera. I don't know if it's the best glass that Kyocera has, or if it's just what Leica ordered, but there are a lot better glasses. Personally, I rather like Hoya. Schott could also have done better. The best glasses have about 4x the dye concentration of the Leica filter. That means, even reducing the filter from Leica's 0.5mm to a DSLR 0.3mm, you have 2.4x more filtering. That's still sticking with dyed filters (no cyan corners) instead of going to a dichroic filter (which can cause cyan corners).

[vivek iyer]

"It'd be interesting to know how many new M8 users actually do anything professional-like with them."

 

I would like to know what this "professional-like" is (not particularly directed at you, John).

 

"From what we've seen online, most users apparently think a wildly expensive digicam will make their snaps of kiddies, homeless, and scenery more valuable."

 

Perhaps not. On the other hand, some of the most powerful images that I have seen in the recent times (Abu Graib, Saddam's execution, a very premature and tiny baby) had been made with digicams or cellcams. So, it would appear (to me, at least)that the events/subjects do matter more than the gear/technical prowess.

 

However, there are many other categories of photography that do evoke emotions and are not entirely dependent on historic/special events.

[vivek iyer]

"With a 12mm rear node and a 25mm exit pupil (I know of no rangefinder lens with an exit pupil closer than 25mm to the film plane) the cyan corners would be dramatically improved by putting the filter behind the lens."

 

Joe, The focus goes to hell when a filter (of "normal" thickness that is available commonly) is rear mounted on RF lenses (retro focus, non-retro focus, various makers/focal lengths). So, this is not a good solution. Having a filter near the iris is a better solution.

[hankg]

Nels I don't know what you are talking about. I made a simple point: add up all the professional images on the net and they are a tiny fraction of the number of total images. The vast majority shot by amateurs. So it's pointless to point out M8 images made by amatuers and try and make some point about the camera because you found some poorly done photos on the web. There are more amatuers taking family snaps with Canon 1 series cameras then Leicas.

 

None of which has anything to do with Magnum or any other professional photographer or the quality of Leica or Canon products. Neither was I comparing myself to anyone else, professional or otherwise.

[hankg]

As to Leica going for "low hanging fruit" it would have been a hell of a lot easier to design an all new digital mount and tell people they would have to get new lenses but Leica's customer base was demanding a digital solution for their Leica glass. Trying to produce the product that your customers want would seem to be what one would expect of a company. I can imagine the howls if the Leica DRF was not M compatible.

[vinay_patel]

Leica was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they didn't roll out the M8 now they would've gone out of business. There aren't enough sales of new M film bodies to keep the firm in business and the DMR was predictably a sales disappointment...not because it was a flawed product (it was actually surprisingly good and reliable, especially taken now retropsectively to the M8) but because simply adding digital capability to the R system did nothing to rectify everything else that has kept it historically unpopular even with the bulk of Leica brand loyalists. OTOH if they did roll out the M8 now, it would come with significant compromises that weren't solvable in the time allotted. But at least some of them would be sold, allowing the company to recoup at least a portion of their cost. From the standpoint of fiduciary responsibility, that was the better choice.

 

But all (or at least we can hope there are no more) of the M8's dirty little secrets are public knowledge (albeit there are still some waning cries of denial) and sales have plummetted. Even people who had come to a grudging willingness to accept the need for IR-cut filters are off-put by the electronic bugs and random unreliability, and hope the phantom Firmware 1.10 (that Leica's website promised for December)will solve at least some of those problems, and more importantly, dispel fears that the splitup with Jenoptik has robbed Leica of the means to write new code for the M8. Now there are reports on the L.U.F. of a "Firmware 1.091" to come before 1.10, but those reports are unsubstantiated from individuals outside of the company. Leica is silent, and their silence is seen as damning. But after the IR-filter issue where Leica's response entailed an obvious and embarassing contradiction, their credibility is so compromised that nothing is going to be convincing short of the actual firmware upgrade itself. Again, damned if they do, damned if they don't. When Irwin says "Leica has the most difficult task to rebuild a ship while is in sailing in a storm" you can clearly sense he is speaking from a lifeboat, and if someone of his unwaivering loyalty to Leica through the past decade of corporate floundering has jumped ship, well, that speaks for itself. Sometimes I liken Leica to an aging actor or singer or athlete who instead of retiring on top, stays in the game until they become a laughable self-parody, and then attempts one last serious comeback to thunderous applause. Not for the performance, which is pitiful, but out of respect for what they used to be.

[gwebster]

<em>... laughable self-parody ...</em><p>

Like your relentless "needle-stuck-in-the-groove" anti-M8 ranting Vinay?<p>

Perhaps one day you'll put aside your personal Leica nightmares long enough to share your thoughts with us on some aspect of photography that you actually ENJOY, or hey ... even post some pictures of your own!

<p>

All work and no play makes Vinay a (very) dull boy.

<p>

Lighten up.

[runkel]

I was not around when Canon switched mounts, but I'm sure there was much gnashing of teeth. My sense is that they are now generally acknowledged of have made the right choice. If there is tension between unlimited backward-compatibility and the physics of a new technology that was unimagined when the original legacy equipment was designed, something has got to give. If Leica had more resources it could have offered both a digital pathway for its existing users and a different solution for others.

 

Hank, that's intersting information about the filter Leica chose, which I have not seen elsewhere. I wondered why thy didn't choose a dyed filter, since it seemed to me that would avoid the angle-of-incidence problems of the diachroic filter. I had assumed that there must be even worse problems associated with using a dyed filter, but perhaps that is giving too much credit to the designers.