Sculpture in situ. Chicago Art Institute. Fun with focus.

 

Not sure this would have worked as well as a monochrome (black and white) image...

 Calder. Flamingo. Chicago. 

A random architectural detail from the Art Institute of Chicago.

 Skylight. Q2. A break from the crowds...

According to James... There is no profound difference in image quality between competing brands. Included Leica SL, Sony and Canon. Here's how he came to this conclusion...

For a change of pace I'm going to write something today that might piss off Leica aficionados; well, at least those who photograph with the SL series of cameras and lenses. But, it's based on some very in-depth work by my friend, James who is an accomplished photographer, videographer and brilliant post production expert. And he has NO dog in the hunt, no reason for dissembling or putting a thumb on the scales of one camera system or the other. His views about three of the better cameras in the universal camera-scape come from an exhaustive, one month long assignment to do post production on over 600 raw images from three photographers all shooting for the same client; albeit in slightly different locations but of almost identical subjects and in almost identical lighting conditions. Take it all with the necessary grain of salt...

Way back on August 9th, in the blistering heat of the Summer, three different photographers were commissioned to make advertising photos of one large, connected real estate development project. I was one of them. We were each given different shot lists but most of the images were lifestyle shots in and around neighborhoods as well as images of lots of the development's amenities (pools, a small lake, schools, community centers, etc.). We each had human models to work with. All three photographers were pros with lots of experience. One was using a Canon R5, one a Sony A7Rv and I was using a Leica SL2 camera. We each photographed in our cameras' raw modes and we each used the premium available standard zoom lenses for our respective systems. I was using the well regarded Leica 24-90mm zoom. 

When we finished shooting we transferred our raw images over to a large ad agency which, during contract negotiations, said they wanted to do the post processing of the images in-house. For whatever reason the in-house idea fell through and a couple weeks after the shoot I got a call asking if I could submit a bid on doing post processing on images from all three photographers. 

I was already committed to retiring, didn't feel like working on someone else's photos and declined the job --- but I like everyone at the agency, they are good people to work with, and my friend, James, is a much better post processor/retoucher/color grader than I will ever be so I recommended him for the project. He bid on it and won the bid. He spent 30 days taking out fire hydrants from front yards, retouching out dead patches of grass, straightening up the perspective on houses, adding humans to some shots via A.I., getting all the color between three different originating cameras and lenses to match up for consistency and much more. He worked on some of the files at 200 or 300% because he is beyond detail oriented and meticulous. He wrapped up and delivered his part of the project on the first few days of October and the client was happy. James was happy. And I was happy that they were happy.

James and I met up for coffee last week. We were sitting in the shade on a nice café patio enjoying a coolish breeze and watching the local talent hard at work on laptops at the surrounding tables. We chatted about all kinds of stuff and then James kind of hemmed and hawed and started out like this: 

"Now, before I say this I want you to know that I'm not trying to rile you up or insult you. Really. I just wanted to tell you what I saw during my month long, daily dive into the files from the three cameras and three photographers on that last project."

I nodded, wondering where he was going with this --- that it required such a long/strong disclaimer. After all we've been having these friendly discussions for ... decades. And I'd never been disclaimered before. 

he continued: 

"I have to tell you, I've spent nearly 100 hours doing pretty high end post processing on the files from the  BLANK project and I was kinda surprised at what I saw. When I zeroed out the color differences between the files from the different cameras and matched up the general contrasts I have to tell you that I really didn't see any difference in overall image quality between any of the three cameras. They are all sharp everywhere in the frames when you guys shot above f5.6. When y'all shot wide open every one of the lenses had some artifacts in the corners and a bit of chromatic aberration around the edges as well. If I take away the exif information from the files I'd have a hard time sorting between them. I mean, eventually I could see difference in composing styles and a preference to shoot slightly darker or slightly light but there's really no discernible difference between any of the three cameras or their lenses. There just isn't." 

Since James had no reason other than transmitting information about the cameras to bring this all up I had to believe his findings. There are a couple of caveats which, actually might accrue more advantages to the Sony or Canon than to the SL2. Both of those cameras have newer sensors and might do a better job in lower light but we were all shooting in bright light. Both of the non-Leica cameras were used with 24-70mm f2.8 lenses and it may be that the difference in focal range makes a slight difference. And finally, none of us were using tripods which means that operator glitches could make differences in the results. An example might be that being at least 35 years old than either of my photographer compatriots my ability to handhold my rig might not be quite as perfect. Finally, the SL2 is a contrast detect AF system while both the Canon and Sony are at the very top of the PD-AF game and so, with moving subjects (human models, dogs, etc.) there might be a discernible difference there. But clearly I am reaching for some sort of excuse. 

What this basically boils down to is that all cameras are really good now. And I think we've all known that for a while. Leica doesn't have a technical advantage if we are doing a competition that's basically all about lens performance and sensor performance. There are other parameters to consider but we've been over them and over them. After the point of technical equivalence is reached everything else is subjective. 

So, if you want to elevate Leica SL cameras and lenses I guess the takeaway is that you'd better be more interested in the some of the "soft" features of those cameras instead of believing that they'll deliver a higher quality product. A better experience while shooting? Maybe. A nicer menu? Sure. But a good pro should be able to pick up any of these cameras (and by extension, a Nikon Z camera and lens) and do a great job satisfying a client. 

Just thought I'd pass this along as a "thought exercise" for both Leica users and non-Leica users. But please note, this "study" only applied to the SL series. We'll have to go shoot a competitive project with the M series and Q series cameras until we've exhausted our fan boy adherence to our favorite systems. 

James squashing my dreams.... of camera perfection.

Ready for a little robotic surgery? 

B. In ancient times. On slide film. Scanned. Obviously.

The perfect child. Early digital times. Kodak SLR/n camera with adapted 

Hasselblad 150mm f2.8 F Zeiss Lens.

Blue sky and puffy clouds. 

we effectively survived the first weekend of the Austin City Limits

Music Festival where a couple of hundred thousand people each 

pay a fortune to sit in the dirt and listen to four different 

bands in the same space at the same time....

More next week....

Last week I swam six days in a row. I'm tired. 

We start again tomorrow. But, on the upside, I'll be in 

great shape for the Christmas Holiday

swim suit season.... :-)

 

The Rumors about the Leica M EV-1 are arriving fast and furiously. Is it the next great thing in the M world or a wholesale betrayal by the brand?

This is NOT a photograph of the M EV-1 Camera. 

It's an older film model. But one can assume the overall body 

style will be much the same...

The very first Leica M camera was announced in 1954 and became widely available in 1955. In an evolution from previous Leica rangefinder cameras the rangefinder and the frame lines were incorporated into one window from the two separate window versions. The distance between the two rangefinder windows was much bigger which allowed for greater focusing accuracy and was a logical improvement that allowed for good focus with faster and longer lenses. That model was the M3. Named the "3" because the viewfinder switched between three bright line frame lines automatically when the appropriate lenses were attached.  That was 70 years ago. And for most of those 70 years the basic design of M series bodies was largely unchanged. The design exception being the M5 cameras which are love em or hate em body designs... And, of course, the shift from film to digital sensors.

The current top line Leica rangefinder is the 60 megapixel M11 series with 60 megapixels of resolution but even this current body is visibly closely related to the original M3 in overall design and operational details. 

The current M11 uses a .73 magnification viewfinder while the M3 offered a .91 magnification viewfinder. Maybe that's why, among film photographers, the M3, at 70 years old, is still a sought after choice for use with classic 50mm lenses... So close to the photographers unaided vision.

The M11 is a 60 megapixel camera using the same classic, triangulation based, mechanical, rangefinder focusing mechanism as nearly all previous M cameras (exception are scientific bodies which are meant to be used with adapters and have no rangefinders). To many Leica enthusiasts the rangefinder focusing is the main reason to use these cameras but....

What the popularity of the Q series cameras showed Leica is that adding an EVF to the mix instead of a traditional rangefinder resulted in the most profitable line of camera models in the company's recent history. The Q series of cameras has been the gateway drug into the system wide catalog but a huge number of enthusiasts have been so happy with the Q camera's implementation of a "modern" viewfinder that they've stayed with their Qs and have felt no need to upgrade to a classic M rangefinder. 

What a number of Leica users have wished for since the introduction of the original Q camera has been for an M camera body that features the ability to interchange lenses (and almost all M series lenses made in the last 70 years are interchangeable with all of the latest Leica M cameras; digital or film) while being able to take advantage of a built in electronic viewfinder. (Add on EV finders have been available at least since the M240...).

And there are a number of advantages to an EVF starting with being able to see the full view of any attached lens, no matter how wide or long without the need for auxiliary optical finders or add-on EVF modules. An EVF means that one is focusing and viewing through the taking lens so there is no parallax -- which can be an issue for optical rangefinder cameras since the focusing and viewing window is located at a different place than the taking lens. The finder sees a slightly different, offset view. No parallax is especially great when taking close ups! And, one can finely preview the images they will get by using the EVF.

The benefit for Leica is that an EVF module is a global commodity part, mostly made by Epson, and can be incorporated into a camera at a much, much lower cost and with much less skilled manual assembly than a mechanical precision rangefinder instrument. Lots cheaper. And because the finder is solid state instead of depending on moving mechanical and optical parts, it is more reliable and doesn't require re-calibration from time to time. Not as subject to failure from shock or environmental extremes.  And cheaper. Lots cheaper to make. 

With all of this in mind the web is right now on fire with rumors and pre-previews of what everyone is calling the Leica M EV-1. Rumor mills were calling the impending camera an M11-V but I'm now convinced the the new M EV-1 nomenclature will be closer to the final name. And some of the bigger names in the Leica influencer community are taking serious notice. 

Other than the fact that the new camera will use an EVF no details or confirmation has been divulged by Leica or other sources. Most pre-preview-reviewers are claiming that because of cost savings from the change from mechanical to silicon tech the camera will debut for about $2500 less than an M11 (original/optical) camera. That would peg the price of the new EVF M to about $7500. I think that's optimistic but I guess we'll see soon enough since everyone is predicting the big announcement by the end of October. Just in time to pre-order for my 70th birthday! Maybe I should wait for the Safari Edition....

Does anyone need this new camera? Well, people who wear glasses and have an issue seeing the full finder on a current M Leica would certainly be a ready market. Same with people who want to use their current Leica M lenses but are having vision issues (usually arriving with advancing age) focusing a traditional rangefinder. And then there are rangefinder fans who will find the EVF very useful when using very short focal lengths or focal lengths longer than 50mm (which have a smaller frame line in the optical finder and so are harder to compose with). 

In all honesty, will I rush out an actually buy one? Probably not. I'm currently pretty happy with the M cameras I own but I am more interested in the Leica Q3-43 with its APO corrected 43mm lens, the 60 megapixel sensor, the image stabilization, and the autofocus. It's more squarely aimed at the way I would like to photograph and makes for a nice partnering with the basic, 28mm Q2. 

Let's be frank here. There is no logical reason to spend the money buying Leica cameras and lenses if you are looking at the usage for everyday, normal photography. Fuji, Sony, Nikon and Canon make perfectly good cameras that equal the technical specs of even the best Leicas. Same with the lenses. If you are a rational person who likes to make budgets and buy things based on equivalences buying Leica gear makes no sense at all. But... if you think certain intangibles are meaningful to YOU and you have the ability to afford something different then you might find value in the industrial design, the menus, the interfaces and even the visual character of the Leica lenses. You won't necessarily get BETTER but you will get DIFFERENT. And some people like that. 

Stay tuned. I have a blog post coming which I wrote after my friend, sometime video producer partner and seriously skilled post production guru told me about the results he saw after spending a full month doing very complex post production on images from a series of shoots. The post production was on images created by three different photographers. One shooting with a Canon R5, one shooting with a Sony A7R5, and me shooting with a Leica SL2. Each photographer using the premium standard zoom lenses for the respective systems. His observations made me stop and think. More to come.

 For now I guess Leica nerds are are waiting for signs from Wetzlar re: the M EV1. More sure to follow. 

I never consciously realized that every city has its own color palette. But there are colors I see in Austin and different colors I saw in Chicago.

It's funny that some things seem hidden until they become obvious. I walk around Austin all the time and I expect that the colors I see on the sides of buildings, on business signage and logos and on all sorts of display advertising are universal. That if you went to London or Lima you'd see pretty much the same assortment of colors. But when I walked down a few streets in Chicago last week one of the things I noticed very much was how different the color choices are from Austin's. More pale blues. More subtle greens. Paler bricks. Softer stone facades. A profusion of mint green colors in various strengths. Less deep red. Fewer signs with contrasty yellows. And it all makes a difference. 

Chicago, at least the parts that I saw, seems a generation older or more mature than Austin and it's reflected in the color choices everywhere. But some things are more universal. Women's leggings are generally the same deep black. Tattoos seem more color uniform; but I think you have to be a big, big fan to have the Chicago Cubs logo prominently tattooed on the back of your thigh... It's mostly the national chain stores and fast food restaurants that have colors in their trade dress that transcend locations and cities. Seeing the yellow arches of McDonalds in the context of local Chicago seemed familiar and at the same time a bit strange. 

The other thing I noticed as a photographer is that in the center of Chicago is that every business, gallery or restaurant is compressed into a tighter space and has less room around it. Less "negative space." Texas, and Austin in particular, is so much newer. So much more spread out. Except in the very center of our downtown businesses are insulated from each other, framed by ample parking lots, never touching side by side. While in Chicago it almost seemed in some places that business had carved out some territory for themselves out of the side of a building. Directly adjacent with no space to spare with other businesses that had done the same thing. The streets are narrower and more crowded which changes the way a photographer interacts with the space. We get so comfortable with our local status quo that even little changes are more pronounced to our photographer's point of view. 

Color choices can be very contemporary or they can be era defying. A lot depends on the demographic of a store, restaurant or gallery's customer demographic.  Businesses that have survived for decades have a vested interest in maintaining their signature look or risk losing customers. New businesses ( which seem to come and go more rapidly in Austin ) can experiment more at the outset as they have no existing base to lose. 

Every year design gurus and color intensive concerns "reveal" the popular colors of the year. Some interesting colors don't survive in consumer culture for more than the year of their announcement while others become mainstream. Light, neutral gray is a currently a popular color choice for new car exteriors. I see it everywhere now. In a year or two it will make the vehicle model seem dated and passé. 

Red (PMS 185) circles back around every ten years. Various shades of green are "evergreen" for financial services companies. A banking concern called PNC uses a horrible combination of orange and blue that's so badly matched that when they bought out a bank chain here in Texas and used that nasty logo on stationary, direct mail and their branch signage the result was a profound exodus of customers in a very short time frame. Color really does matter though logic-titians does like to admit that we have big reactions to color.

Chicago's blue sky is different than Austin's. Less intensely saturated. The buildings are more demure in tone and less prone to flashy color display. But the result is that they seem to defy trends better and the overall effect is the perception of stability. 

I like color and often photograph things just to see how the colors of objects or signage render in the digital space. On my monitor. And it's fun to find funky uses of color. I'm interested to know if anyone else pays attention to variations of color in their photography practices. It's the age old question of: "How can I be at all sure that all people see colors the same way I do?" The answer is that we'll probably never know. 

One of the reasons I use certain cameras is that technical trade-offs give them greater color differentiation. More color discrimination which basically means finer and finer degrees of change in tone and hue. The trade-offs may be that the camera has to do more processing and so trades off speed of capture and file processing. Even when the underlying sensor is the same between brands it's the processing protocols that make many color and tone differences.  This may be one reason why some cameras have better high ISO noise performance than others. One model is getting you multiple images quicker while another company might give you a more realistic and complex color palette by giving up speed and different performance parameters on the borders. It's a choice. Always a choice because technology is always a trade off between speed and accuracy. Just a few thoughts after a wonderfully engaging swim practice on a bright Saturday morning. Thoughts?

The Armored Bridge of Millennium Park in Chicago. Impervious to RPGs?

It is sinuous. 

I was so tempted to slide down the exterior of the bridge but I didn't want to get lost...

World famous graphic designer captures yet another color anomaly on Wabash Ave.

Several colors in the above image that I saw repeated in various places throughout Chicago's downtown. So different from Austin. But a nice change for me.

The softer nature of the stone work color.

Another Saturday Spent Swimming, Writing and Avoiding the Chaos on the east end of our neighborhood. That would be the outdoor music festival for a couple hundred thousand "friends" in Austin's Zilker Park. And after the two weekends of a noisy and crowded concert (Austin City Limits Music Festival) the city of Austin will spend a quarter million dollars for a study with consultants to figure out what happened to the once healthy turf at the park which is now a giant field of raw dirt. And at the next rain will become a giant field of mud.  Oh well, it's about as appealing to me as a concert of leaf blowers and chain saws. And we get enough of that...

And traffic is a mess everywhere. Staying here in the bubble. It's safer and saner that way.

 

Psychedelic Photo Journey in the depths of Chicago.

 Leica Q2. Tripping on some Cabernet Sauvignon...