article: Interview With Stefan Daniel, Leica Director Product Management

[Paul Luscher]

Originally Posted by thegman

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.

Entirely true. Because of course with a 6X9 negative you don't need to do much of a blow-up to produce a sizable picture with great detail.

But yeah, using a medium format camera in concert situations would likely make me very unpopular ( I've had my moments of negative feedback from audience and performers...even while using a Leica...) and might result in a lot of missed shots.

It's a matter of tradeoffs, I guess...

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

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.

Hi,

Well, I've been taking pictures with a dSLR since 1997 or 1998 and have noticed one or two improvements. That includes Leica and Olympus dSLR's...

But my point was, why throw away film cameras just because something else as good, perhaps has come along. Back of an envelope sums shows my CL and film costs.

My experience with buying and selling and using digital is that digital is more expensive than film. I know what my printers have cost and the ink and I know what I'm paying for film etc. Without digital photography I'd not be needing to upgrade computers and would probably be still using an old laptop 2 or 3 inches thick, instaed of using it as a doorstop. (It still works btw, a tribute to Toshiba imo.)

Regards, David

[hipsterdufus]

Hey guys, sorry to veer off-topic, but I was wondering if you could tell me which is better: film or digital? I've never seen this discussed on the web...

[Paul Luscher]

Originally Posted by hipsterdufus

Hey guys, sorry to veer off-topic, but I was wondering if you could tell me which is better: film or digital? I've never seen this discussed on the web...

AGGHHH! NO! Don't do this.....

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

But my point was, why throw away film cameras just because something else as good, perhaps has come along. Back of an envelope sums shows my CL and film costs.

I might be misunderstanding you, David. If you mean why should you, personally, throw away film cameras, I'd say you shouldn't. I certainly wouldn't. In fact, I still buy and use a lot of film cameras. I don't think there is any reason why someone who enjoys shooting film should get rid of their film cameras.

If you're comparing the tendency of digital users to trade up frequently to the tendency of film users to keep using technology that works, regardless of its age, I think my previous post on that topic explains that. That was what I thought you were alluding to.

If you mean why should Leica throw away film cameras, that's a different story. That has to do with marketing, strategy, and potential for profits for Leica. It will be a sad day when they stop producing film cameras, but I have no doubt that day will come, and probably not all that far in the future. Their marketing man has spoken.

I apologize if I am still not understanding what you are saying. If you keep trying, it'll sink in eventually.

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

I might be misunderstanding you, David. If you mean why should you, personally, throw away film cameras, I'd say you shouldn't. I certainly wouldn't. In fact, I still buy and use a lot of film cameras. I don't think there is any reason why someone who enjoys shooting film should get rid of their film cameras.

If you're comparing the tendency of digital users to trade up frequently to the tendency of film users to keep using technology that works, regardless of its age, I think my previous post on that topic explains that. That was what I thought you were alluding to.

If you mean why should Leica throw away film cameras, that's a different story. That has to do with marketing, strategy, and potential for profits for Leica. It will be a sad day when they stop producing film cameras, but I have no doubt that day will come, and probably not all that far in the future. Their marketing man has spoken.

I apologize if I am still not understanding what you are saying. If you keep trying, it'll sink in eventually.

Hi,

It looks to me as though we totally agree on all points. No need to apologise.

Regards, David

[Sam Kanga]

I was just happy to read Stefan Daniel acknowledge:

"We know exactly where are the weak points, for example battery life and processing speed. For the next generation we try to strengthen those weak points."

AND "...the success of the product comes from the fact that the lenses are ultra small. By adding autofocus, motors and gears and electronics inside the lenses these lenses would either become much slower in speed, or it would become much bigger. There’s a good reason to stay in manual focus because it keeps the whole system as compact as possible. And having full-frame, by the way. Everybody could reduce the size of the lenses by reducing the size of the sensor. The trick is to have a very big sensor and small lenses. And this is only possible right now by having manual focus. That’s the current situation. It may change in the future."

Praise the Lord!

I was worried that they were going to do something dopey with the M series. They of course should look at video, autofocus etc. but in another model type, not the M. Just try to improve the M - battery performance, image quality, buffer speed. Keep it essentially a simple camera like the film M's. Sadly, no chance of Leica "improving" the price of future M's.

That's my 2 pfennigen worth as a long time Leica film M user.

Sam

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Sam Kanga

"...the success of the product comes from the fact that the lenses are ultra small. By adding autofocus, motors and gears and electronics inside the lenses these lenses would either become much slower in speed, or it would become much bigger. There’s a good reason to stay in manual focus because it keeps the whole system as compact as possible. And having full-frame, by the way. Everybody could reduce the size of the lenses by reducing the size of the sensor. The trick is to have a very big sensor and small lenses. And this is only possible right now by having manual focus. That’s the current situation. It may change in the future."

This argument is strangely unconvincing if you compare, say, the autofocus Contax G lenses, which are full frame, just as big or smaller, and pretty much just as good:

Zeiss 21/f2.8: length 36mm, weight 180g
Elmarit 21/f2.8: length 46mm, weight 320g

Zeiss 28/f2.8: length 31mm, weight 150g
Elmarit 28/f2.8: length 30mm, weight 170g

Zeiss 35/f2: length 32mm, weight 150g
Summicron ASPH 35/f2: length 35mm, weight 250g

Zeiss 90/f2.8: length 63mm, weight 190g
Elmarit 90/f2.8: length 76mm, weight 395g

These don't contain a motor, but they contain transmission gearing instead. A halfway modern stepper motor isn't that big either, and you could make some of these twice as heavy and they still would weigh less than the M equivalent.

I think the story is different - Leica knows full well that it's perfectly possible to build a small, light, full-frame autofocus system, but doing so would alienate their userbase. So in order to keep up the narrative of being at the forefront of technology, they make up a (weak) technical argument to support them, knowing well that their userbase isn't likely to question an argument that happens to support them.

[Sam Kanga]

Hi, Thanks.

I've not used the Contax G system. I assume it works well, and allows the photographer to work quickly and confidently.

I do know that I have no complaints having used film M's, for many years. I can be blazingly fast, and can't think of many shots I've missed because of focus issues. If the G system works well, I wonder if Leica will consider doing something like that if they feel they need an autofocus rangefinder. I guess that would be a different model with new lenses.

Thanks
Sam

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by rxmd

...........I think the story is different - Leica knows full well that it's perfectly possible to build a small, light, full-frame autofocus system, but doing so would alienate their userbase. So in order to keep up the narrative of being at the forefront of technology, they make up a (weak) technical argument to support them, knowing well that their userbase isn't likely to question an argument that happens to support them.

- Leica knows that adding AF to their FF body would add additional ones to their existing issues. Reliability of Leica is not anymore as in the film days. To realize a reliable AF they need a lot of R&D.

- Contax lenses were designed right from scratch in accordance to the requirements of screwdriver type AF; they are light (optical group is light too), focusing speed is plausible and power consumption is minimum. Leica lenses construction-wise are manual focusing designs dating back to the '50s, heavy construction (chrome ones especially are brass/bronze construction), heavy optical elements (especially f1.4 ones) to necessitate powerful motor in the body and consequently greater battery capacity. Assuming these have been satisfied, then again all f1.4 lenses, f2 75 and 90mm Summicrons, Noctilux etc. would focus rather slowly (even f1.2L Canons are slower in AF compared to their f1.4 brethren.)

My guess: Leica, one day, may introduce a separate series of lenses designed for AF (designed from scratch) based on the APS-C format with a totally different body concept. It will definitely feature a CMOS sensor and hopefully the manual focusing will not be like the one on the Contax, i.e. through body but over the lens like the AF Nikkor lenses. IMHO there lies Leica's real expansion capacity for future.

Regarding to the FF series, it will live on as a niche series with the existing lenses and some further features will be added based on the CMOS sensor.

[seanbonner]

Originally Posted by raytoei@gmail.com

There is not really a technical reason to shoot film.

Actually the technical reason is pretty obvious, the technology used to shoot film today will be the same and work the same and produce the same results 5, 10, 25, 50 years from now, where as the M9M & M9P will be obsolete underachievers in 10 years no question.

[Paul Luscher]

Originally Posted by seanbonner

Actually the technical reason is pretty obvious, the technology used to shoot film today will be the same and work the same and produce the same results 5, 10, 25, 50 years from now, where as the M9M & M9P will be obsolete underachievers in 10 years no question.

I am always wary of making predictions about the future. More often than not, they turn out to be...wrong...

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Paul Luscher

I am always wary of making predictions about the future. More often than not, they turn out to be...wrong...

I have to agree... plus, do people really only buy things that will last a lifetime? Nope.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Paul Luscher

I am always wary of making predictions about the future. More often than not, they turn out to be...wrong...

Yeah, but making predictions about the past is gets boring quickly.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by rxmd

Yeah, but making predictions about the past is gets boring quickly.

Unless your intent is to obfuscate it, in which case it's all in a day's work. I'm sure there are people who are paid to do that.

Oops, pardon me. That would fall under telling lies about the past, not predictions about it.

[Paul Luscher]

Originally Posted by rxmd

Yeah, but making predictions about the past is gets boring quickly.

Point taken. But the good thing about those kinds of prediction is that you're 100% right.