Leica exec speaks to Forbes.com about digital medium-format strategy

Take a chill or a Valium there big guy. What's needed is a good ole fashion shoot out (with cameras and lenses). We can meet at high noon someplace nice; I'll be driving a beige Subaru wagon, what make of black German car will you be driving? Peace.

This forum is just overrun with "desktop photographers". I'd say about 80% or more of the people who regularly comment on here just read specs from websites and draw conclusions from other so-called pros such as Ken Rockwell.

It's hard to have civil discussions here because if you try to correct someone they get offended and it just gets out of hand quickly. That's the internet for you.

But how do you explain to someone who moved from a COOLPIX to a D3200 the intricacies involved in using a MF setup? All they know is HIGH ISO and HIGH MP = PRO CAMERA!

The need for high ISO and fast AF isn't important when you spend 6 hours building and lighting a set for a big advertisement.

Yes, but the m monochrome represented very near zero R&D costs. The s was a pretty expensive effort for a system of such limited appeal.

Medium format digital systems are ALL limited appeal. They are not marketed towards the DP Review crowd. They are selling to high-end commercial photographers with unlimited budgets.

I'm sure the Leica team have done cost analyses and determined that it would be a profitable venture in one form or another.

Man, you a really kid. You are having fun with your V1, but Leica S for real professional with real job.You know even screwdriver has a different (more than 10 times) prices, one for house works, other for job in garage workshop for professional master. Please think about next time when you typing your "muhaha"

Actually, twizeel, you're the kid.

How could you miss the heavy-handed sarcasm in starwolfy's post?

: )) sorry, I dont want to read his mind. That is not humor exercising forum, isnt it?

My point is, there ARE photojournalists out there using the Leica M system. You just have to get out of the camera forums and go look for them.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it ain't there...

The other thing you should keep in mind is that these lenses take a lot of time and money to design,and if you think they're expensive look at Zeiss Master Anamorphics at $40,000 each... These S lenses are made and assembled by hand to very tight tolerance's,the waiting lists can be very long..

The S will move to a higher MP cmos sensor ..

Where will they get such a sensor?

@Petka ..Lloyd Chambers said that S glass is in a class of its own,i have the nikon 1.4G's and the sigma 35 1.4.. and to my eyes S glass is a step up,even wide open the color and contrast is superb..

there are physical reasons why small format can't compete with medium format. Once they both have high quality glass, MF just gives better images. The same physical limits operate in proportion to the wavelength and that's why you see radio telescopes getting bigger and bigger. They're not doing it to be the biggest kid on the block, they do it to get better images. Same with optical telescopes. Bigger really is better and size does matter.

While making the sensor bigger does provide certain advantages, it does not automatically follow that larger sensor is better. Much, much more money has been poured into development and manufacture of FF and APS-C sized sensors than MF sensors, as there is not much money in MF and it is vastly cheaper to make a great FF sensor (like the one in D800) than a similar quality (speed, DR etc) in MF size. Actually it has not happened yet. It is possible to get slightly more resolution from the best $30000 MF backs that from $3000 D800, but that is all, D800 has the best DR and high ISO (with D4) at the moment. Bigger has the possibility of being better, but sometimes it just isn't for practical (technology, price) reasons.

@Petka.. I have used both of them and the D800 does not have as good or better IQ..

It's comparing apples to oranges really... the D800 has pixel density comparable to 16 MP DX format, so the noise problem is still there, nevermind the gulf between Full frame and Medium Format to begin with.

@ChronoBodi Medium Format sensors use pretty old tech. Most of them can't even shoot above ISO 800. I'm afraid for the low light/high ISO shooting 35mm is the "sweet spot" right now.

Noise problem with D800???? Have you seen the measurements? It has the highest dynamic range of any sensor so far, and second best high ISO performance if my memory serves, so it has less noise problem than any camera. S2 is not really medium format.

"nevermind the gulf between Full frame and Medium Format to begin with."

Indeed, there is no reason to "mind" it at all. Perceptual science says 100% larger is a "gulf". 25% larger is just a ditch. Or it would be, if the sensor technology in the two cameras were equivalent. The D800 sensor, a decade more advanced, is well more than 25% better, in every measurable way, than the antique in the S2.

So, "nevermind the gulf". because it's not actually there.

" rather than this sluggish tank headed for oblivion." it's lighter than a nikon D4 and not much heavier than a D800 or 5Dmk3 and it allows you to use incredible lenses.. (I have a d800E as a street camera,I like it as lot) S glass is heavy but thats the price for the level if IQ they deliver to a large sensor..

PKGoth-

The M8 and the M9 have shutters that are mighty loud for shooting discreetly. And neither is particularly good at higher ISOs, and the ability to shoot in lowlight oft goes with shooting discreetly.

I have been working in photojournalism for 35 years, and while some colleagues did use them during the film era, right now I know 0 (zero) people who use them. One co-worker just sold his last Leica M which was just gathering dust.

Many PJ's favour the M for it's super Quiet shutter..

The M film cameras were frequently used as reportage cameras, but in the digital era Leica probably has lost most of their journalist user base.

M digitals ARE quiet, they ARE VERY quiet.

The perception of them not being quiet comes from photographers not using their brain to understand that the noises that they can hear coming from the camera when the camera is pressed up against their face, and therefore only about three or four inches from their ears, can't be heard by those around them. Stand at 10 feet/3 meters from a person in normal surroundings and shoot a digital M and then shoot a full frame SLR and I am pretty sure the SLR clatter will be heard by your subject but the "whirr" sound from the digital M will not be noticed; not unless the person is really concentrating intentionally to hear that specific sound.

So in a nutshell, the notion that digital M cams are not quiet is a myth; they may not be totally silent, but they are certainly quiet and quiet enough to be a stealth camera.

Panasonic has nothing to do with this. Their "Leica" products are licensed by "Leica Microsystems", the microscope company that owns the Leica name and the red dot.

Leica Microsystems also licenses the trademark to Leica Camera, a different company in a different country, stuck in the unenviable position of having to pretend that the Panasonic P&S cameras have something to do with them.

There won't be a mirrorless or video capable medium format camera by August. Not August 2013, 2015, or 2020.

@Joseph S Wisniewski

Have you seen the intrerview of Phase One exec over at The Luminous Landscape? He seems to be giving a strong hint that CMOS sensors will come to medium format pretty soon (a requirement for decent video in MF, no?).

And Leica have now moved over to CMOS in their new M. So I would hazard a guess that it won't be long before the S-System gets a CMOS sensor too (they're probably working on it already).

What say ye?

I'd expect companies like P1 to be hinting at CMOS, to try to slow their user exodus. But I wouldn't expect to see them actually commit to it and make statements about expected release dates, because I don't think there are any sensor suppliers prepared to roll it out.

Leica's supplier for the M sensor is CMOSIS, and they're moving in the opposite direction, 24x36mm sensors that are getting design wins over medium format sized TrueSense (formerly Kodak) and Teledyme (formerly DALSA, formerly Phillips) in document handling apps.

I'm anticipating the death of anything larger than FF in the commercial photography field inside of five years. Fortunately for P1, Adobe seems to be making room for P1 to transition into a software company.

Hi,

I don't think the MF market will move to CMOS because of one simple factor: there are no CMOS makers producing MF-sized sensors.

And by the pace these guys sell, they probably can't afford Sony to develop a new CMOS sensor for them.

But IMO, that's not exactly a bad thing... these CCD backs are noisy anywhere after base ISO, and are a bad joke at "High" ISO, but at base ISO they shine like no other system.

I've shot with many different cameras, including my Leaf Aptus back, and at base ISO, there's something else entirely different there.

Something I've never seem in any Nikon, Canon or CMOS based cameras.

So I don't think MF makers will move to CMOS, but that's not exactly a bad thing IMO.

The difference is not that large. If I remember correctly, it is only about 1.2-1.3 times larger linearly than 36x24 - not a huge difference.
And, most significant, there's no reason for MF SLR: this should be mirrorless in order to achieve maximal predictability in focusing, exposure checking and minimizing size.

Emacs is correct. The sensor is 30x45mm, only 1.25x the size, 1.56x the area. If the sensor technology were equal to that of the FF cameras currently on the market (instead of years behind), the "punch" that Peter talks about would still be pretty much missing.

He used film as an analogy. That's a good analogy. There's a principle of psychohysics (perceptual science) that says you pretty much have to double something to get a feeling of it really being different. In the case of image size, that "something" is not area, which is what Leica yammers on about, but linear dimensions.

That's why, after years of thrashing about, the film market settled out to.

Miniature format - 35mm with a 43mm diagonal
Medium format - 6x6 with a 85mm diagonal
Large format - 4x5 with a 162mm diagonal

Doubling every time. That's what it takes, not 25%.

@Joseph S Wisniewski

Good points that you make.

Would you say then, that compared to 35mm none of the current MF digital systems/sensors are worth the bother?

And what of the difference between APS-C digital and 35mm digital, do you think there isn't that much difference there given the diagonal measure of the sensors?

Thanks in advance.
Regards,
plevyadophy

None of the "tweener" models are, the 33x44mm $10k P1, "Leaf", and Blad offerings. Medium format doesn't really shine until you spring for one of the $30k bodies with the 40x53mm sensors, and then, the thing that grabs you is the huge pixel counts.

Pentax 645D makes sense, if you're coming from APS, and you want something that really feels different.

I was surprised at how little difference I felt with FF as far as sensors. The biggest difference is the lenses, and that's all due to FF being a relatively optimized SLR, 39mm back focus on a 43mm diagonal, so the normals and wides aren't too bad. APS, when you still have the 39mm back focus but cut the diagonal to 26-29mm, is an optical mess. There's never been an APS "normal zoom" as good as a classic Nikon 28-70mm was on FF, and the 24-70mm ups the game even more. It's much easier, across the board, primes or zooms, to put together a top-shelf system using FF. I was really hoping we'd have seen more progress in that area by now.

Hi plevyadophy,

Allow me to enter the conversation.

Like Joseph said, the CCDs in digital backs are 10 years behind in sensor development. That's true, a simple fact.

I shoot with a Leaf Aptus and it's unbelievable that such a large sensor can't go past ISO 200 (!!!) without noise penalty. At ISO 400, it's noisy as a cell phone, no kidding!

If you only think about High ISO or technological progresses, run away from DMF.

But there's something else to talk about:

Even though it's old technology, these backs have differences in CFA, microlenses, A/D converter, and sensor type (CCD vs CMOS) and size, that makes for a whole difference experience.

Believe me, my Leaf back is noisy as h#ll at ISO 200, but I would never trade it for the D800, for the kind of work I do.

I need base ISO (25 is this case), and at base ISO nothing touches a digital back, although DXO charts might tell you otherwise.

It's not about numbers (X stops of DR, etc). It's about a different visual feeling.

Yep, ideas of beauty do differ.

What if the uncle only charges the cats $4000?

@dylanbarnhart
I'm pretty sure the quality of the photos and the credits of the photographer make the price tag. The price of the body he/she uses doesn't say anything!

I run 50.000$ per day photo shoots with Sony FF DSLR and did with Canon and Nikon before. I know plenty of photographers who run 6 figures budget photo shoots and use Canon 5d.
Cameras are never an issue with clients, they normally trust the photographers choice.
I also own medium format Phase one , but there are many circumstances, the vast majority, where these MF system are just not practical and would be hindering the result, simply because they are too slow. including the S2, which is a magnificent camera.

Dylan, you have no idea where the "shock and awe" comes from in this industry. The camera is trivial.

If a client steps into my studio for a $5000 shoot, they'd be confronted by so many things that the cat-shooting uncle doesn't have, starting with people (a makeup artist and an assistant) to a setting (a three sided cyclorama) to lighting (two 6 foot Chimera soft boxes, on some whopping big stands, a beauty dish on a boom, two snooted hair lights).

I don't like Apple for this reason... their misleading marketing is a huge reason.

Yep. Medium Format buyers already know ALL about Nikon D800-whatever and Canon EOS-whatever.

I'm not sure why one would pick a Leica medium-format and not a Pentax 645D. The price difference (body as well as lenses) is abysmal and the IQ, well, you judge. And the 645D is truly weather-sealed.

@ RStyga
The Pentax body is great; short of having live view and a touch-screen interface (like Phase One IQ backs) it is the most modern MF body out there. The Leica body is by far the most beautiful MF body, in fact I regard it has one of the three most beautiful interchangeable lens bodies of any format.
However, at present Pentax don't have any lenses that do justice to the sensor and certainly nothing that matches the Leica S glass (in fact hardly anyone does).
You might care to read Lloyd Chambers' review of the Pentax 645D and that of other reviewers.

Plevyadophy, we can do a test and show you images taken with a 645D and one of its new lenses, and images taken with a Leica S and one of its lenses — but not telling which one is which.
I bet you, nor either of us here won't be able to say which was taken with which. And if "you do tell", it will be a purely wild guess.
Because Pentax 645D glass is that good too.

Thing is, if you do the math you'll see that Airy disk already exceeding size of 2 pixels at f/8 for Nikon D800. So difference between 60MP and 40MP will not be so visible for 35mm. Of course Nikon and Canon probably will produce such models just for marketing sake or maybe for easier noise removal after down-sampling.
Compare 16MP picture from P&S and 16MP picture from FF DSLR in terms of resolution. Difference will be the same for 60MP 35mm sensor and 60MP Medium Format sensor.

There are two factores you forget:
- Diffraction
- Depth of field

With a 35 mm fullframe cam, and 50 mp, your pixels would be so tiny that you would hit diffraction at a very low aperture value. With 6x4,5 cm sensor those pixels (at 50 mp) would be much bigger.
Another is the depth of field. You can have much shallower depth of field at a sharp aperture value with a medium format (if that suits your way of shooting)