The impact of Leica's sensor technology on aesthetics

Dante_Stella

Dante_Stella

Rex canum cattorumque
Local time
1:29 PM
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
1,862
This is a question that someone of Bill's experience would be well-put to answer.

Do you think that Leica's relatively slow progress in sensor technology and (absent) progress in image stabilization uniquely force a certain sense of visual aesthetics on photographers who use digital M cameras?

I would specifically reference the need, in low light, to use high-speed lenses. The necessary aesthetic consequence would be seriously diminished depth of field relative to what would be obtained with a high-ISO DSLR.

Regards,
Dante
 
Dear Dante,

Possibly.

But far more important is Leica users' pre-existing sense of aesthetics: small, light, fast handling cameras under the control of the photographer rather than a firmware designer

Tash delek,

R.
 
It seems like that wide open low light look was a fav with film M shooters so little would change. That is making a virtue out of necessity imposed by the constraints of film. There was simply no other way to get the shot. You could, arguably achieve the same wide open look with a modern DSLR as far as DOF is concerned with the option to stop down if that is what you want to do. You did not have that option before in a lot of cases. Throw some form of image stabilization in to boot and that would allow even more options in a wider range of situations in low light. I don't think it is a unique look as far as DOF is concerned but agree it is forced on you.

Bob
 
Dante_Stella said:
I would specifically reference the need, in low light, to use high-speed lenses. The necessary aesthetic consequence would be seriously diminished depth of field relative to what would be obtained with a high-ISO DSLR.

Regards,
Dante
Click to expand...


You can argue it the other way around. That high ISO and slow lenses force a certain aesthetic on your average DSLR photographer.

The point is that in either case the photographer chooses the way they mainly want to go, shallow DOF or deep, small hand holdable camera or one that needs high ISO and IS to stop the trembling photographer. In both cases there are compromises if you want to deviate from the essense of the camera.

Steve
 
I think their slow progress on any sort of technological advance is due to the aesthetics of the cameras themselves. The last time Leica tried any sort of even remotely timely upgrade for the purposes of making the M series easier to use, it (the M5) was a flop, largely IMO because it looked so much different from the previous M cameras. Even then, built in metering was certainly not new. They didn't try to put a meter in their cameras again until 13 years after the M5's introduction. Aperture Priority mode, which was pretty well standard in other cameras since the seventies, didn't show up until 2002. Leica was one of the last major players to introduce a digital system camera, and the m8 and 8.2 were nowhere near up to normal Leica standards. It is only in 2009 that Leica has finally made a good digital M. Now you are talking about image stabilization? They haven't even gotten around to autofocus. I would expect to see image stabilization somewhere around the year 2035. To me, all of this adds up to my opinion that the most important aesthetic to Leica is the aesthetic of their camera bodies, not the usefulness to the users or a certain aesthetic to the work produced with their cameras. I am not saying that a Leica isn't useful, because it certainly is. It is not, however, much more useful than it was 50 years ago, whereas most other companies have managed to squeeze a good bit of innovation in to their cameras in that time period.

As to high ISO and slow lenses forcing a certain aesthetic on a DSLR photographer, I disagree. The DSLR shooter certainly has the option available to use a high iso slow lens combination, but fast lenses are certainly available, and there is no requirement to use high ISOs. If a DSLR shooter avails him or herself of the aesthetic broght about by high ISOs and slow lenses, he or she does so by choice.
 
I would disagree to the extent that most dSLR users I've encountered @ least start out using zooms & they are invariably slower than equivalent primes.

Merkin said:
As to high ISO and slow lenses forcing a certain aesthetic on a DSLR photographer, I disagree. The DSLR shooter certainly has the option available to use a high iso slow lens combination, but fast lenses are certainly available, and there is no requirement to use high ISOs. If a DSLR shooter avails him or herself of the aesthetic broght about by high ISOs and slow lenses, he or she does so by choice.
Click to expand...
 
furcafe said:
I would disagree to the extent that most dSLR users I've encountered @ least start out using zooms & they are invariably slower than equivalent primes.
Click to expand...

The point is that whether beginner DSLR shooters realize it or not they do have an option, fast primes, while the M9 option is fast primes or fast primes. The M9 way is not a drawback if you want shallow DOF all the time in low light situations.

Bob
 
I actually prefer the DOF provided by f/2.8 apertures in low light, so the ability to shoot at ISO 1000 without noise is critical, which the Canon 50D or 5D will easily do. While I have fast lenses, I rarely use them at maximum aperture.
 
Leica Digital Cameras strike me as preserving the essence of their film based cameras. It's nice to see that.

From a system-level Design Engineering point of few, fast primes means not having to use super-sensitive sensors and image stabilization. The high-sensitivity sensors being used in the high-end DSLR's must add to the size of the package. You have to be very careful about introducing electronic noise into the image. The more sensitive the sensor, the more sensitive it is to noise from the surrounding electronics. Bigger package.
 
This discussion reminds me of the old Japanese proverb, "If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". I love my Leicas, (film) and do 98% of my work with them but sometimes you just need a slr. Joe
 
Roger:

Those things don't preclude the use of higher sensitivities or stabilized sensors. Are you saying that it's a perception issue on the part of Leica users?

Dante

Roger Hicks said:
But far more important is Leica users' pre-existing sense of aesthetics: small, light, fast handling cameras under the control of the photographer rather than a firmware designer
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure that the use of super-sensitive sensors can be done in "as small" of a package. The packaging is very important, and more shielding and physical separation might be required for higher-sensitivity sensors.

One of the custom sensors at work just ran into that problem. More sensitive sensor in the previously used package picked up much more noise and yielded unacceptable performance.
 
There is an archaic device made to sharpen longer exposures. 4x5 and 8x10 users use them all the time. Ries, Gitzo, and others still make them. They com with aluminum tubes, cahannels, carbon fiber, end even wood.

Perhaps yuo could learn to creatively add flash so it does not look like flash.

I suppose you think manual focus is cramping they style too.

If you feel cramped, I suggest a Nikon D3S and some fast auto focus primes. The package is neither small or light, but is cheap at least compared to Leica.
 
Tyler Gyro-Stabilized Camera Mount.

Also produces sharper images. It was very big. Looked cool in the P3 Orion.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
IS is magic! I can consistently get sharp photos handheld with my 70-200 IS at 200mm at 2.8 and 1/15 second. Kind of scary, really. :)
Click to expand...


I would go along with that. If you have never used a camera/lens with some form of image stabilization the experience is a real eye opener. Being lazy I would prefer not to use a tripod and image stabilization goes a long way to making tripod use a distant memory.

Bob
 
IS is great, even on point and shoots. My girlfriend has a canon P&S which I had very little faith in since the max aperture is something like 3.2 and highest iso is 1600 (supposedly it'll be 3200 on auto, but I've never seen it go that high). 3.2 at 1600 leaves a lot to be desired, on my film cameras when shooting 2.8 I usually need 3200 (2.8 at 1/15th), but with IS, I can shoot on my girlfriend's cheap little P&S at 3.2 at 1/6th or 1/8th of a second, at 1600, with no issues what so ever.

I have a 50/1.5 which isn't so bad, but it would be nice to not have to shoot wide open, especially when it's dark and hard to focus. The 2-3 stops really makes focusing easier.

I won't get a M9 because the only advantage it seems to have over other full frame cameras is that it accepts M mount lenses. As far as features etc go I see no reason to get an M9. If i wanted to fondle a camera, I guess I'd get an M9

(also they're very expensive)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom