Kaufmann again: Interview Popular Photography May 2008

Kevin,

Wedding photogs shoot DSLRs simply because it's much more effective. 8 to 10 fps, better resolution then medium formats films which we're dead slow and only 12 frames per roll.

DSLRs replaced Medium format, SLRs as well as rangefinders for weddingd. By the way, I never heard of anyone shooting weddings with Leica-Ms. That's just odd.

And before judging the M8 as you do, why not try one, first? I know I'd fully trust my M8 in any situation. And I'd go around the world with the M8 only if I had a spare- Exactly the same as Film-m bodies.

Please don't start judging the M8 as you're doing the Noctilux-That is without even having first-hand experience. You can't really expect to be taken seriously.
 
kevin m said:
What kind of screwball, circular logic is this? .
Click to expand...
Dear Kevin,

Not so much screwball logic as a statement of the obvious. You are NOT a potential customer for the cameras they are making: you want them to make something else.

What it boils down to is that Leica prefers to do it it their way, not yours.

I don't presume to tell Leica how to run their business, not least because I quite like the way they're doing it at the moment. I give my opinion on specific issues, when I'm asked, and occasionally I make suggestions; but I have a realistic view of how much my opinion counts at Solms, viz., not very much.

If you want them to do it your way, it's quite simple. Do what Mr. Kaufmann did; buy the company; tell them to do it your way.

Until then, consider the possibility that you know less about the company than Mr. Kaufmann does; that you almost certainly know less about making money (I believe he's a billionare, and I don't think I'm insulting you unduly by suggesting that you aren't); and that maybe your way isn't the way forward.

Or maybe it is. But one thing I can tell you, from talking to quite a lot of photographic manufacturers, is that one of the reasons they stay off the forums is because they don't especially welcome advice from people who think they know more about the business than its owners. I don't recall anyone at Solms talking about this, but I've heard it from plenty of other manufacturers.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Ned,

just because you haven't heard of anyone shooting weddings with Leica-Ms doesn't mean that no one does.

Just as you're asking Kevin to not judge the M8 before trying one; don't assume that it's odd that people did, and perhaps still do (somewhere), shoot weddings with Leica-Ms (Ricci's for example uses M8's for his wedding work).

Dave
 
arturo said:
I think I may be beaten up for what I'm about to write, but here are my gut feelings about a Nikon digital rangefinder:

The rumours on a digital Nikon RF keep coming because Nikon has all the ingredients needed to produce such a camera. They have the know-how to produce classic RF cameras (from the reissued S3 and SP) and to produce digital cameras (from the DSRL line). And certainly they can make a line of lenses to back it. Now they recovered the edge they lost to Canon few years ago. They just need the will and the market demand.

I have the gut feeling that if Nikon went into a digital RF this time it would be for real, not a nostalgic or irrational exercise like the reissued S3 and SP cameras, but a product for the mass market. I mean something much bigger than the RF camera market. Such a product would have to compare in terms of image quality delivered with a top-of-the-line DSLR, and in terms of size, handling and photographic experience with a rangefinder camera. But a rangefinder camera would only hit the mass market, or even the professional market, if the concept of rangefinder camera is fundamentally reinvented. It must accept zoom lenses. It must have AF. It must have a decent flash system. And of course some other features that you can already find in RF cameras, like integrated exposure meter (ideally TTL).

A camera with the features rumoured previously in this thread makes perfect sense to me. It is actually a kind of genuine post-film camera design, overcoming the shortcomings of both reflex designs (mirror, internal moving parts, etc) as well as rangefinder designs (parallax, viewfinder not adequate for zooms, etc.). It is not a film camera with a sensor in the back, but something truly new. And if it can take existing lenses, it makes even more sense.

I believe Nikon has the technology and the corporate culture to manufacture such a camera, if cost was not an issue. If they want a camera that is not limited to a niche market (in the way the M8, IMHO, is) then Nikon probably must wait until they can sell it at a price consumers are ready to pay. Say something above the D3 price but not much more, and not too far from the M8 price either. If the most expensive single component is the sensor, probably Nikon would wait until the sensor price drops enough to make it feasible. Rather waiting until the electronic components get cheaper than sacrifying build quality (beyond certain limits). This is my guess. And my hope. I salivate only to think about it.

Arturo
Click to expand...


I totally agree.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Arturo,

A very fair analysis, but there are a few nits I'd like to pick.

First, how much does this differ from a high-end digital compact? The only differences I can readily imagine are first, a half-decent viewfinder instead of a chimp window and second, interchangeable lenses with reasonable speed.

Second, there's still the problem of the body thickness. Use an SLR sensor and you're looking at about 50mm/2 inch body thickness in front of the sensor. A thin body assumes a smaller sensor (= lower quality) or a microlens array (= M8).
Click to expand...
What Arturo wrote is what I've been keeping saying for years, i.e., I never got the point of any D camera wanting to be a film camera with a sensor inside instead of film. Something new is mandatory, and in a certain way the "live-view" mode having appeared on most of the high-end (now even on some prosumers ones) DSLRs just confirms that idea.

And yes, sensor size is critical, but not critical for itself. Sigma claimed to have solved that problem with their DP-1 (DSLR sized sensor in a compact digicam) but I must say that I'm not convinced at all by that beast judging by all the photos from it displayed all around which I could closely look at.

What puzzles me re. the M8, which I have handled and used, is its very poor ergonomics. I can't guess why they absolutely wanted to stay on the film-based M design (flat body and round edges in particular) since there is neither any film cartridge nor any film take-up spool in that thing. Sometimes I wonder if Leica hadn't stocks in some hand-and-thumb orthopaedics offices.

Nobody had to invent any "Thumb-Up" nor any other strange add-on to improve the grip of a recent DSLR...

Also, once a camera needs some batteries to work, relies 100% on its CPU and electronics, has a firmware in, a view LCD screen and all, I don't see the point to keep that old 54 years old optic rangefinder in. You'd say, to use the existing M lenses. Yep, so why did they need to release that recent Summarit lenses line ?

I have seen professionally post-processed RAW files from the M8.

I have seen professionally post-processed RAW files from the Canon EOS 1D MkII and the Nikon D2X.

I have seen professionally post-processed RAW files from the prosumer Canon 350D and Nikon D40X plastic toys.

Quite frankly... I'm still not convinced, that the M8 will provide better photos (purely technically speaking) than the D40X fitted with a very good lens given that the essential post-processing step is taken into account.

What many of these gear-biased threads seem to omit. Things have changed. When you shoot digital, more than half of the job will have to be done at post-processing.

So far the *most beautiful* digital pictures I have ever seen in my life come from a friend's Canon EOS 5D outfit. Just because the friend is now a master of LightRoom and the like.

Rather getting a good entry-level prosumer DSLR, buying yourself a high-end APO ASPH IS etc carry-all-around zoom with the money saved on the body, shooting RAW, and mastering the post-pro just fine, than spending four grands on a M8 (without lens).

Nostalgic of the good ol' RF time ? Well, so am I sometimes. This is why I use to take these old RF things off the cupboard, and burn a film or two with them, when I want a trip in the past.

But putting nostalgy in a 21st century digital body and as a result getting quirks such as critical rangefinder calibration issues and purple casting etc. doesn't make much sense for me.

Just my two cents etc.
 
dcsang said:
Ned,

just because you haven't heard of anyone shooting weddings with Leica-Ms doesn't mean that no one does.

Just as you're asking Kevin to not judge the M8 before trying one; don't assume that it's odd that people did, and perhaps still do (somewhere), shoot weddings with Leica-Ms (Ricci's for example uses M8's for his wedding work).

Dave
Click to expand...


I'm in the business for the past 12 years, never seen one do it. So you maybe can enlighten me. Please don't come up the extreme few you can count on your fingers and which you heard about in the internet (like Ricci). You're probably trying to make a point but I don't get it.

I carry a Leica in all the weddings I shoot, but that's just for the fun of it. I can show many leica wedding shots, but I'll never shoot an entire wedding with a rangefinder. I can certainly foul internet folks with many beautiful pictures and make-believe they're "Leica weddings" but the truth is, I won't shoot more then 50 shots with a M.
SLRs and DSLRs are the way to go, and it's really no surprise. Look at the market shares and try to convince me.
 
NB23 said:
I'm in the business for the past 12 years, never seen one do it. So you maybe can enlighten me. Please don't come up the extreme few you can count on your fingers and which you heard about in the internet (like Ricci). You're probably trying to make a point but I don't get it.

I carry a Leica in all the weddings I shoot, but that's just for the fun of it. I can show many leica wedding shots, but I'll never shoot an entire wedding with a rangefinder. I can certainly foul internet folks with many beautiful pictures and make-believe they're "Leica weddings" but the truth is, I won't shoot more then 50 shots with a M.
SLRs and DSLRs are the way to go, and it's really no surprise. Look at the market shares and try to convince me.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

It seems that when anyone on this board responds to a post of yours and if it's not to agree with you that you seem to take it as some sort of personal attack. Either that or your mastery of the English written word doesn't allow your responses or post to come off in a non-confrontational way. If it is the former, then I really think you need help. If it is the latter, then I will take the words for what you've said and again say that I am not trying to convince you of anything.

You stated, right here, on this page, with this sentence:
nb23 said:
By the way, I never heard of anyone shooting weddings with Leica-Ms. That's just odd.
Click to expand...

I am merely pointing out that just because you have never heard of it, doesn't mean that these people do not or have not existed.

Dave
 
So I take it you don't like the ergonomics of the film Ms? They handle the same for me (I don't use the film advance lever for anything other than advancing film, so no need for a Thumbs-Up, etc.).

Highway 61 said:
What puzzles me re. the M8, which I have handled and used, is its very poor ergonomics. I can't guess why they absolutely wanted to stay on the film-based M design (flat body and round edges in particular) since there is neither any film cartridge nor any film take-up spool in that thing. Sometimes I wonder if Leica hadn't stocks in some hand-and-thumb orthopaedics offices.

Nobody had to invent any "Thumb-Up" nor any other strange add-on to improve the grip of a recent DSLR...

Just my two cents etc.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more, Roger!
There's nothing more sickening then to read people offering "expert advice" to companies. It's worst then the plague.

Dpreview was the most pathetic example. Canon users apologizing for being "Canoneers" when asking a question in the Nikon forum and vice-versa... People announcing Leica's death, people giving Mr. Kaufmann advice, non-customers lecturing leica... Even a child would find such behaviour childish.



Roger Hicks said:
Dear Kevin,

Not so much screwball logic as a statement of the obvious. You are NOT a potential customer for the cameras they are making: you want them to make something else.

What it boils down to is that Leica prefers to do it it their way, not yours.

I don't presume to tell Leica how to run their business, not least because I quite like the way they're doing it at the moment. I give my opinion on specific issues, when I'm asked, and occasionally I make suggestions; but I have a realistic view of how much my opinion counts at Solms, viz., not very much.

If you want them to do it your way, it's quite simple. Do what Mr. Kaufmann did; buy the company; tell them to do it your way.

Until then, consider the possibility that you know less about the company than Mr. Kaufmann does; that you almost certainly know less about making money (I believe he's a billionare, and I don't think I'm insulting you unduly by suggesting that you aren't); and that maybe your way isn't the way forward.

Or maybe it is. But one thing I can tell you, from talking to quite a lot of photographic manufacturers, is that one of the reasons they stay off the forums is because they don't especially welcome advice from people who think they know more about the business than its owners. I don't recall anyone at Solms talking about this, but I've heard it from plenty of other manufacturers.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...
 
Ned, check out this site: http://www.jeffascough.net/

He used to shoot exclusively with M Leicas until a couple of years ago, and the Noctilux was his favorite lens, BTW.

Don't know what to tell you, Roger. Mr. Kaufmann recently acquired the company, didn't he, so the M8 isn't his creation. But I'll be surprised if he thinks the luxury toy market is big enough to keep his company afloat. A camera with no professional user base won't last long in this world.
 
furcafe said:
So I take it you don't like the ergonomics of the film Ms?
Click to expand...
The film Ms had that peculiar ergonomics because of the film cartridge and the film take-up spool being there in just behind the shell. Quite frankly, I'm not a big fan of that "flattened tube" design (although it was quite nice on the small Barnack Leicas). But the winding lever is a nice grip for the thumb, it compensates.

Back in the 70's Leica went through deep ergonomics and design studies. The shape of the Leica R4 body was a direct result of them. There are many sketches around showing that this half-round/half-flat design, at the edges of the body, made it for a very pleasant and "natural" grip with no hand palm fatigue.

The M6 prototype, released back in 1981, had this design, which we find on the Minolta CLE and the recent... Zeiss-Ikon RF.

But - scared by what had happened to the M5, market-wise, Leica finally released the actual M6 with the old M3's round-edges design.

So did they re. the M8.

Also, the film Ms hadn't that horrid plasticky-slippy covering they put on their $$$$ M8... :angel:
 
The reality of the M8 is that it was rushed to market...even if Leica do not want to admit it. The did not really sort out it's problems or .....there would not be all these bubble gum "fixes" now.....next they are behind the curve and over priced. The film M cameras still procuce images of excellence that outperform the M8. The next chapter of this story is yet to be written. But Leica needs to do a better job communicating. But no matter what the excuses..if you want the top spot on the "hill" you must out perform every other digital camera on the market...end of story. Best Regards....Laurance
 
Ned, check out this site: http://www.jeffascough.net/
Click to expand...

Actually, everyone should check out this site. I'd forgotten what a master photographer the guy is. The man has a painter's eye for composition and light.

He has said that he uses his Canon DSLR just as he did his film M's: manual exposure, natural light (with the occasional use of flash.)
 
kevin m said:
Mr. Kaufmann recently acquired the company, didn't he, so the M8 isn't his creation. But I'll be surprised if he thinks the luxury toy market is big enough to keep his company afloat. A camera with no professional user base won't last long in this world.
Click to expand...

Dear Kevin,

I'd be surprised if he bought a company that was making products in which he had no faith. Would you buy such a company? We may fairly assume that he likes Leicas.

Your continuing sneering use of the phrase 'luxury toys' ignores at least three important points.

The first is that quite a lot of Leicas are actually used professionally. Not vast numbers, but equally, a long way from none. For some, they may be luxury toys. For others, they are professional tools. Certes, anyone who denies they can be used professionally is hardly to be taken seriously.

The second is that a truly remarkable number of professional photographers own Leicas for their personal work, even if they don't use then directly to earn a living. They enjoy using 'em; they can put 'em through the business; they wouldn't buy 'em if they were bad cameras.

The third is that if enough people buy them as 'luxury toys' -- which has always been an important part of the Leica market -- then the relevance of wedding photographers' opinions is pretty negligible. Quite a lot of manufacturers survive very nicely, thank you, by selling expensive toys with only the thinnest veneer of utility. The fashion market is a good example, as are 'trainers'.

As for your assertion that a 'camera with no professional user base won't last long in this world', this is patently nonsense. The professional user base of Box Brownies was never great, but they survived well enough. Or to change fields, the professional user base for Ferraris is pretty small, too, but they're still in production.

Your problem seems to be that you don't like the idea of a limited-production luxury item which is also functional. You want something different and cheaper. That's fine. But why do you expect Leica to make it for you? If there's a real gap in the market, someone will make the camera you want. The fact that no-one is making it, coupled with the fact that Leica is making and successfully selling both film and digital M-series cameras, rather suggests to me that the market may not be quite as you see it.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Your continuing sneering use of the phrase 'luxury toys' ignores at least three important points.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. I was just trying to keep up with your withering condescension.

... a truly remarkable number of professional photographers own Leicas for their personal work....
Click to expand...

Which makes them a toy, no matter how you justify it.

...if enough people buy them as 'luxury toys'....then the relevance of wedding photographers' opinions is pretty negligible.
Click to expand...

True. But it would also be true if enough people bought them to use as paperweights, so I'm not sure I get your point. And is the crack about "wedding photographers opinions" really necessary to make your case?
 
Or to change fields, the professional user base for Ferraris is pretty small, too, but they're still in production.
Click to expand...

Not even close.

Ferrari is on the F1 podium in every race. They compete, and win, at the highest level of competition on the planet. Everyone who drives a car knows the name "Ferrari," no matter what car they actually own.

A better automotive comparison might be the Morgan. http://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/
 
Dave,
My english understanding is fine and I will not hide behind the language barrier if people don't like what I'm saying. I know what I'm writing.
And maybe I have a problem with english understanding or maybe you have a problem with what I'm saying.

So there's one guy shooting weddings with Leicas. Only one, and you decide to make a point about it. Fine, you win. But what was your point beyond proving that there is in fact at least one person who does it? Just to annoy or contradict me? Even you, apparently use a 5D for your wedding work... so?

But above this, my point was that Kevin is constantly lecturing Leica. Now he wouldn't use a M8 for serious work. But has he tried one? Even you don't have an extensive experience with the M8.

I know I fully trust my M8. If I had a backup, I'd be willing to shoot the Iraq war without afterthoughts.
 
Ned, FWIW, I know, or knew, of half a dozen wedding shooters who used Leica M's, including a couple of the most recognized and celebrated wedding photographers on the planet. I know of only one person who uses an M8.

I would STILL be shooting with Leicas if the M8 were as good as their film bodies, but they aren't. The fact that so many pros own an M8 as their "personal camera" means, at the very least, that there's room for improvement. Closer to the truth is that Leica has to significantly upgrade the functionality of the camera to make it a pro tool:

1. Weather sealing, 2. dual card slots, 3. dedicated iso dial. It wouldn't hurt if they could lower the noise at high iso's, too.

You're already happy. Roger's already happy. Many owners who use their camera for their own pleasure are already happy. If Leica is happy, too, pleasing this dwindling base of true believers, then they're all set. If they want to grow, or reach out to new users, then they have some work to do.
 
Ned,

I have no problem with what you are saying. I think maybe my issue is with "how" you say it.

Every post seems to be very confrontational from you.

Then again, maybe that's just the way you are, your personality per se, who knows.. but that said, hopefully you can understand that I was pointing out the fact that there is not "just one" person shooting weddings with a Leica M.

Riccis, sure, that's one; Ben Eden and Greg Mace are two others. I'm sure there may be more. I certainly don't claim to know every single wedding photographer in the world and I certainly wouldn't claim to know that none of them shoot "Brand X" cameras.

I would agree that Kevin should give the camera a try - but, as I also noted in other threads, many people can't just "try" the M8 without purchasing the M8. And, for some folks, $5,000+ is a lot of money for a test drive.

The only reason I don't have extensive experience with the M8 is because it had to go back to Solms to get fixed for a faulty sensor....

I'm glad that your M8 is fine; and same with those out there who also have no worries with their M8's as well. These cameras are just like any other camera in the sense that there are some that come off the production line obviously flawed while others are perfect. I just got unlucky in getting a flawed one.

I think what happens in threads like these is people tend to associate the problems with the camera (or perceived problems) with the company. I personally like the M8. I do have issues with how Leica "does things" but I am not going to associate the camera or gear with the customer service or business decisions of Leica. To me, they are separate and distinct. While I would like to change one, I know that I cannot (or would not) be able to, but that should not mean that I cannot voice my opinion on the topic.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom