article: Interview With Stefan Daniel, Leica Director Product Management

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Sorry if this has already been posted.

http://the.me/interview-with-stefan-...n-leica-users/

some snippets:

Mr. Daniel, you think photographers using film will continue to stick to it. What are Leicas intentions regarding their film cameras? First of all, we’re still producing M7 and MP cameras. We’re producing them because there is a demand for it — small, but quite stable. As long as this demand exists we will also be making these cameras. Technically speaking, from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film. Especially if you take an M Monochrom which is producing beautiful black-and-white pictures, one of the last domains of film, black-and-white film. There is not really a technical reason to shoot film. But an M Monochrom doesn’t smell film and doesn’t give you the limitation of having only 36 frames in your camera. There are still some emotional reasons why to use film. The people using it right now are doing it for that exact reason. They don’t do it by hazard, but on purpose.

=================

[gavinlg]

Oh sweet I'll just go out and grab myself an m9 mono with that $10 in my bank account...

Seriously though, from what I've seen I still much prefer the photographs made with real black and white film over the monochrome m9.

[thegman]

Hmm, to say "from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film", is pushing it a bit. Having said that Leica make film cameras which use the lowest technical quality film commonly available, 35mm. I suppose some people will only buy Leica, and therefore never use medium format or large format, but that statement reeks of very insular thinking to me.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by thegman

Hmm, to say "from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film", is pushing it a bit. Having said that Leica make film cameras which use the lowest technical quality film commonly available, 35mm. I suppose some people will only buy Leica, and therefore never use medium format or large format, but that statement reeks of very insular thinking to me.

Since Leica isn't really invested into either medium or large format film cameras, from a Leica point of view it makes perfect sense to equate film with 35mm film.

[Keith]

Technically speaking, from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film.

Not to jump on the bandwagon that protects film from the digital onslaught but I think this is a spurious statement!

Define quality when you're talking about film? Obviously the Mono will kick 35mm film's butt for resolution but there's a lot more to it than that. The M9M is a monochrome digital camera and IMO it's output should not be compared to film and vice versa ... they are, and always will, be worlds apart!

[axiom]

Reading the snippet in a RSS reader, then click into the thread to see your avatar....

Priceless

Originally Posted by raytoei@gmail.com

Sorry if this has already been posted.

http://the.me/interview-with-stefan-...n-leica-users/

some snippets:

Mr. Daniel, you think photographers using film will continue to stick to it. What are Leicas intentions regarding their film cameras? First of all, we’re still producing M7 and MP cameras. We’re producing them because there is a demand for it — small, but quite stable. As long as this demand exists we will also be making these cameras. Technically speaking, from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film. Especially if you take an M Monochrom which is producing beautiful black-and-white pictures, one of the last domains of film, black-and-white film. There is not really a technical reason to shoot film. But an M Monochrom doesn’t smell film and doesn’t give you the limitation of having only 36 frames in your camera. There are still some emotional reasons why to use film. The people using it right now are doing it for that exact reason. They don’t do it by hazard, but on purpose.

=================

[jsrockit]

I see nothing wrong with what he said. Of course he has to be biased.

[RichW]

Originally Posted by raytoei@gmail.com

Technically speaking, from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film. Especially if you take an M Monochrom which is producing beautiful black-and-white pictures, one of the last domains of film, black-and-white film. There is not really a technical reason to shoot film.

Rubbish, you can overexpose by a few stops with Tri-X and still get gorgous results. from what i've seen of the Monochrom, as great as the images look, the highlights can easily clip and turn to pure white, the curve isn't as pleasing, film overall still looks better to me, I think we have a good few years yet 'til digital can match film

R

[thegman]

Originally Posted by rxmd

Since Leica isn't really invested into either medium or large format film cameras, from a Leica point of view it makes perfect sense to equate film with 35mm film.

That was the point I was making, it's very insular thinking to say that because Leica has not done it, it does not count. It's like Apple saying "We make the fastest computers", because they're only counting their own products.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by Keith

Not to jump on the bandwagon that protects film from the digital onslaught but I think this is a spurious statement!

Define quality when you're talking about film? Obviously the Mono will kick 35mm film's butt for resolution but there's a lot more to it than that. The M9M is a monochrome digital camera and IMO it's output should not be compared to film and vice versa ... they are, and always will, be worlds apart!

Not necessarily, 35mm film, if slow enough, can outresolve an M9 and presumably a Monochrom too:

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page169/page169.html

Maybe it's not fair to compare such a slow film, but would it also be unfair to compare very high ISO, where the M9 cannot compete either? I don't know, but I do find Stefan Daniel's statements very full of holes, in fact more hole than content really.

[Mackinaw]

You guys can get into another film vs. digital argument, for me, I'm just impressed that Leica will continue to make the MP and M7. They really don't have to, I'm guessing they probably sell only a few hundred of these cameras/year. Bully for them I say.

Jim B.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

You guys can get into another film vs. digital argument, for me, I'm just impressed that Leica will continue to make the MP and M7. They really don't have to, I'm guessing they probably sell only a few hundred of these cameras/year. Bully for them I say.

Jim B.

I also say bully for them, it's great stuff. I don't see any harm in pointing out mistakes in what they say though.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

You guys can get into another film vs. digital argument, for me, I'm just impressed that Leica will continue to make the MP and M7. They really don't have to, I'm guessing they probably sell only a few hundred of these cameras/year. Bully for them I say.

Jim B.

They will stop selling the MP and M7 as soon as sales decline enough so that it is no longer profitable to them. This is just business.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

They will stop selling the MP and M7 as soon as sales decline enough so that it is no longer profitable to them. This is just business.

To be fair, a lot of companies would have (and did) pack it in sooner. Many will pack it in not because it's not profitable, but because it's not profitable *enough*. Or more likely, it's not "strategic".

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by raytoei@gmail.com

Sorry if this has already been posted.

Yes, there was another recent thread on this.

Leica's future.. Fujifilm's future..

It also had an interview with Mr. Komori from Fujifilm, so it may be of interest to readers of this thread.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by thegman

To be fair, a lot of companies would have (and did) pack it in sooner. Many will pack it in not because it's not profitable, but because it's not profitable *enough*. Or more likely, it's not "strategic".

I agree. It is a credit to Leica that they have continued to produce the film M's. The explanation given was that there was still a small but steady demand for them. My point is really that the interview makes it clear that Leica is not committed to the luxury film camera market, but rather to the luxury digital camera market, strategically.

I'm in the market for an MP, so I hope they continue to produce them long enough for me to get what I want.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

They will stop selling the MP and M7 as soon as sales decline enough so that it is no longer profitable to them. This is just business.

And given the opportunity, after ceasing production of film cameras due to non profitability, they will release special limited batches of MPs commemorating film every couple of years or so at triple the price and collectors who have never even seen a roll of film will snap them up!

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by Keith

And given the opportunity, after ceasing production of film cameras due to non profitability, they will release special limited batches of MPs commemorating film every couple of years or so at triple the price and collectors who have never even seen a roll of film will snap them up!

Now that would be funny. A $15 thousand dollar commemorative MP or M7, body only. Just another $7 for the latest lens.

[David Hughes]

Hi,

FWIW, I can't see the point of throwing away perfectly good film cameras just because something else has come along. Should the M2 have been sold when the M4 appeared? Etc, etc.

I suppose I just want to get my money's worth. And, didn't they claim they were for a lifetime?

Regards, David

[BobYIL]

[quote=raytoei@gmail.com;1913289].... Technically speaking, from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film. Especially if you take an M Monochrom which is producing beautiful black-and-white pictures, one of the last domains of film, black-and-white film. There is not really a technical reason to shoot film. .... There are still some emotional reasons why to use film. The people using it right now are doing it for that exact reason. /quote]

Such statements I do not find fitting to some top executive of a well established camera company.

I still use film, but digital too; and the reasons I use film involve some emotional reasons, some very important emotional reasons, not like nostalgia but defined as “aesthetics” and “artistic” as well as some technical reasons which Mr. Daniel seems to not accept (or deny in spite of knowing well). Let’s see them:

One of them is the response to colors:





The one on the right is film’s response to colors in the visual spectrum; from blue (450Nm) to green to yellow to orange to red (over 600Nm): As we see film has more or less a linear response to all colors our eyes can see: LINEAR.

The one on the left is the CCD sensor showing its sensitivity again to the same colors: This curve is as linear as the hump of an Arabian Camel.

With the linearity of color sensitivity, my $5 Tri-X or HP5 can record the gray tones of all colors of subjects in life closer to their actual illumination level recorded by our eyes. The sensor OTOH needs additional and expensive software (and manipulations) to approach that “film look”.

Dynamic Range:

My $5 film can duplicate up to 14-stops easy, just with ordinary development; with at least +/- 1 even 2 stops exposure error for still excellent results to be taken care with development. The Leica sensor’s best response is not even 12-stops; and miss the correct exposure, gone another stop or two “with the wind”. By the way, some others even with APS-C size sensors began to claim 14-stops these days...

Dynamic range is one of the most important aspects in photography, through which we record the tones in nature true to their nature; i.e. hi-fidelity in photography; just like being able to record the tiniest tingle of a triangle of an orchestra while the kettledrums thundering on the other side.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. People are not after buying mere resolution anymore, they want more than what’s expressed in lines/mm. Some of us may still be waiting for a digital M-model to turn out B&W like the M7 or MP... Mr. Daniel's statement was not unlike claiming Vermeer being greater painter than Rembrandt as the former was known for depicting his subjects down to the minutest details.

This is digital age and people are buying by believing in what they see with their own eyes first, rather than what the manufacturer was claiming for. Mr. Daniel seems to be much pretentious about resolution; I might suggest him to take a look at what a 36MP sensor is able to turn out with a 50mm lens costing around $200. Hopefully Leica can come up with some M- (not S-) to reach that level following Photokina 2012.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

FWIW, I can't see the point of throwing away perfectly good film cameras just because something else has come along. Should the M2 have been sold when the M4 appeared? Etc, etc.

It has to do with rapid development of digital technology leading to substantially improved capabilities and features within a short period of time, David. A ten year old digital camera is signifcantly less capable than a modern camera.

Film cameras experienced continual development to improve features and capability over the years too, but much more slowly, taking decades rather than months for new technology to encroach on the old. And as we all know, a Leica from 60 years ago is just as capable today as an MP or M7, minus the light metering capability.


A Fujix DS-1P camera from 1989 with a .4 megapixel capture capability is purely a novelty item. It is not a useful camera. The Canon EOS-1 was also introduced in 1989, and it is still a useful and desirable modern film camera.

[Paul Luscher]

Originally Posted by thegman

Hmm, to say "from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film", is pushing it a bit. Having said that Leica make film cameras which use the lowest technical quality film commonly available, 35mm. I suppose some people will only buy Leica, and therefore never use medium format or large format, but that statement reeks of very insular thinking to me.

I'm no expert, but I'd probably have to disagree. As far as my experience has been , you get excellent and sharp prints out of 35mm film...that's the magic of it...as St Barnack said: "Small negatives, large prints."

Of course one reason for that is because 35mm lenses have to be made to a higher standard of quality, resolution, etc, than medium format lenses, because the neg-to-print magnification ratio is many times higher for 35mm than for medium format.

Given the way I shoot, and what I shoot (candids, live concert work), the 35mm-format camera has been a godsend, as opposed to lugging around a large, heavy, and slow medium-format job. Of course, that's what the 35mm camera was designed for...

[fotomeow]

ya, the "quality" point of view statement he made was very controversial.
I do have to remember that he is the "Director of Product Management", in other words, he is a marketing puppet.
The second issue is that a new M7 is still $5k. A new M9 is $7k.
Quality? Maybe from an economic stance the M9 is better

[thegman]

Originally Posted by Paul Luscher

I'm no expert, but I'd probably have to disagree. As far as my experience has been , you get excellent and sharp prints out of 35mm film...that's the magic of it...as St Barnack said: "Small negatives, large prints."

Of course one reason for that is because 35mm lenses have to be made to a higher standard of quality, resolution, etc, than medium format lenses, because the neg-to-print magnification ratio is many times higher for 35mm than for medium format.

Given the way I shoot, and what I shoot (candids, live concert work), the 35mm-format camera has been a godsend, as opposed to lugging around a large, heavy, and slow medium-format job. Of course, that's what the 35mm camera was designed for...

I quite agree that 35mm film can deliver results similar to a full frame DSLR, and probably with better colour. I know that 35mm lenses, pound for pound tend to have more resolving power than medium format. However, I have a 6x9 medium format camera, which I guess has something along the lines of 9 times the film surface area of 35mm. A 35mm lens will resolve more, but nothing like enough to make up that difference.

Of course for your purposes, 35mm makes a whole lot more sense, but for mine as a wannabe Ansel Adams, MF or LF makes a sense too.

[DamenS]

Originally Posted by rxmd

Since Leica isn't really invested into either medium or large format film cameras, from a Leica point of view it makes perfect sense to equate film with 35mm film.

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I see nothing wrong with what he said.

A snail says "I have the fastest top speed of any animal on Earth". Since the snail isn't really a mammal or a fish or a bird or a reptile, from the snail's point of view it makes perfect sense to equate "any animal on Earth" with invertebrates.