Good S2 review in luminous landscape

[JMacD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Worth reading:

Leica S2 – First Impressions

 

Mark doesn't like the lens hoods but loves the camera.

Yes the sliding lens hoods on longer M lenses are great, but the S hoods don't bother me. I merely wish the lens cap was easier to use. Small complaints.

 

He also wants lenses in market faster, but so does Leica I suspect.

[markowich]

Worth reading:

Leica S2 – First Impressions

 

Mark doesn't like the lens hoods but loves the camera.

Yes the sliding lens hoods on longer M lenses are great, but the S hoods don't bother me. I merely wish the lens cap was easier to use. Small complaints.

 

He also wants lenses in market faster, but so does Leica I suspect.

 

the reviewer certainly delivered precisely what he promised: an absolutely non-scientific review. the tenor is: i looked at medium size prints and they look very good, comparably to the usual suspects and 35mm FX is far behind.

a typical LR style review, or better said an appraisal, useless to the extreme.

peter

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gogopix]

messieurs,

 

En Garde!

 

:-)

[LeicaS2]

Peter,

Could it be that JMacD merely commented that the review was a generally positive review, and good could mean positive as opposed to negative ? But then, since he has one, he probably would skip posting a completely negative review for us.

 

I thought it had some interesting comments on the autofocus comparisons?

 

JMacD, I suggest for petes sake that next time you title your post "Another stupid L-L so-called review that suggests the S2 might be good, but as usual, without real data to prove their point". Also don't suggest anything is "Worth reading" in the future, in case your chosen link can be interpreted as anything beyond "useless in the extreme".

 

But I suspect Peter is not annoyed at JMacD, but clearly at this L-L quasi-reviews that send him over the edge? Stay cool, we can start a thread elsewhere on how some hate the L-L, and hopefully avoiding six more posts in the S2 forum?

 

So, hey, what do you think of the comments on auto focus?

[SJP]

Reviews are futile.

 

Like => good review

Don't like => bad review

 

Even if it contained massive technical details a positive review of the S2 would be viewed as "not useful" by some as it falls in the "don't like" category.

 

A review that says that "I don't give a toss about technical stuff but I really like the S2" is just as relevant as one with lugubrious lens comparisons etc.

 

Having said the LL reviewers credentials looked good enough to me.

[rosuna]

Well, I like the review. It is very positive.

 

The AF comments are very interesting and informative. The review points to many things we all know. It is a great camera, just as good as similar 40MP systems but with better optics. A few advantages (optics, uncropped sensor), a few disadvantages (smaller format size). Price higher than those 40MP systems with cropped sensors (33x44, etc), but lower than 645 systems'. The system is not complete yet...

 

It has not changed my opinion. I would say: different, better in many ways, but too expensive. The "too expensive" thing depends on the scale of production and income strategy of Leica. It is too expensive for catching a large market share, but it might be ok for a maximization of income in the short term, until the complete system is ready.

 

It is a really beautiful camera in any case. In my opinion Leica has set a very high standard for the company. It is a luxurious, very well designed and executed product, better than the M9 and much better than the X1. I am interested in the spreading of that quality (design, manufacture) over all Leica digital products in the months to come.

[Johnny_Johnson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

The AF comments are very interesting and informative.

 

Except that the information is incorrect in that the competitive AF systems don't operate as described.

 

The following statement was posted to the LuLa forum this afternoon:

 

"The article is in fact in error on the matter of autofocus.

 

I accept responsibility for not catching it. I prepared it for publication but did not read it carefully because I was in transit yesterday.

 

I have contacted Mark to see how he wants to handle editing the piece.

 

I apologize for the error.

 

Michael "

 

 

But hey, it is LL so what else is new?

 

Later,

Johnny

[zlatkob]

It was an interesting review. But it would be more interesting with some comparison images. Some things — like pictures — are better explained with pictures than with words.

 

The author explains the omission by writing: "pixel peeping on a monitor IS NOT a proper way to judge image quality. Prints are the proper way." However, this doesn't mean that monitors are entirely useless. I spend many hours editing and adjusting photographs on a monitor, so my monitor is a pretty good tool. And Luminous Landscape has been providing comparison images for years, so why stop now?

[rosuna]

Except that the information is incorrect in that the competitive AF systems don't operate as described.

 

The following statement was posted to the LuLa forum this afternoon:

 

"The article is in fact in error on the matter of autofocus.

 

I accept responsibility for not catching it. I prepared it for publication but did not read it carefully because I was in transit yesterday.

 

I have contacted Mark to see how he wants to handle editing the piece.

 

I apologize for the error.

 

Michael "

 

 

But hey, it is LL so what else is new?

 

Later,

Johnny

 

Where is the error?

 

I was referring to this claim:

 

An important thing that few photographers are aware of is that autofocus systems are not continuous; they work in zones. The Leica S2 has many more zones of focus from close up to infinity versus the competition. In other words, the S2 can focus more accurately at a specific distance.

[mwilliamsphotography]

I think it was a pretty good review ... the S2 camera is very nice and it should not be denied its strengths being delivered with enthusiasm from a photographer's POV, scientific or not. The price is what it is, and that horse has been beaten to a pulp. Either you can afford it or you can't.

 

I DO admit that I was stopped cold at the AF mention as one of those strengths when compared to other makes of MFD, and it is good to see that this is being addressed in some fashion or another. IMO, it marginalized the significant AF advancements that Phase One and Hasselblad have made with recent offerings ... especially Hasselblad's True Focus Lock with the H4D cameras that is a remarkably elegant way to swiftly and accurately overcome off-center focus recompose issues.

 

Let the S2 camera stand on its own merits, and then it is a "positive" or "good" review IMO.

 

BTW, I agree with the reviewer that prints are the optimal way to evaluate ... but since I don't have all the systems and all the lenses from each system (Leaf, Phase One, Sinar, Hasselblad), I guess screen presentations are all relative to one another and will have to do.

 

-Marc

Edited June 29, 2010 by fotografz

[stunsworth]

Seemed a reasonable summary of someone's impressions of the S2 to me. It wasn't claimed to be an extensive review, and it wasn't. The photographer obviously enjoyed using the camera and felt it was at least a match for the alternatives.

[AlanG]

I can't understand why prints would be a good way to evaluate a digital image file. This only introduces another factor into the process. Printers, inks, papers, drivers, interpolation, software, etc. are all variables. It is possible that, a print will minimize the differences between images. And who knows which of these factors may favor one file over another? This may be fine if you are only planning to make prints from a specific printer, but if you are looking for tiny (and perhaps irrelevant) differences, a print might not show them.

 

I think if you are trying to find image differences between some of these cameras you will have to make a lot of tests and look very carefully. And it may come down to the fact that for a lot of subjects, images printed at a given reasonable size, and viewed from a standard distance, with typical vision, various cameras will do. (Consider that seeing every flaw on a person's face is not always the best way to go.) At some point it comes down to usability for purpose, price, versatility and personal preference.

 

And what is with the useless images of plants and leaves shot wide open, hand held, at higher ISOs? I would consider that once you are getting to ISO 640 shot at f4 hand held at lower speeds, a 35mm camera with IS might be a better choice. And especially so if the subject is moving at all. I know his article is about other "more controlled" tests. But what are these shots doing there and who is the target end user of this system? Do many people really need to spend $30,000+ for boring hand held images of leaves?

 

Static subjects are fine to test ultimate resolution, color, and to see any flaws in the lenses or files. But why not have a test where a very skilled and critical fashion/portrait photographer compares using some of these systems in various typical scenarios? Isn't this the ideal application for the S2 and where it is intended to outshine other systems?

Edited June 29, 2010 by AlanG

[stunsworth]

Alan, what would be a better way than prints - bearing in mind the typical use for these cameras? Surely not a pixel peeped 100% view that doesn't in any way represent how a final image would be used? I have to say that I don't see the point of an MF camera if all you are going to do is produce A4 sized prints.

[GMB]

But why not have a test where a very skilled and critical fashion/portrait photographer compares using some of these systems in various typical scenarios? Isn't this the ideal application for the S2 and where it is intended to outshine other systems?

 

I think it all depends on what you want to do with the camera.

[mjh]

Where is the error?

For one thing, his talk about “zones” (“autofocus systems are not continuous; they work in zones”) is a bit misleading in this context. Contrast-based AF systems for compact digicams do in fact work in discrete steps, mainly to cut down on the number of contrast measurements to be performed. Because of the relatively large depth of field of cameras with small sensors this works quite well and keeps the autofocus reasonably fast. A contrast-based AF for a camera with a larger sensor needs to work in finer increments and is correspondigly slower. However, non of this applies to phase-detection AF systems as used by DSLRs.

 

In the forum Mark has back-pedaled to some extent, explaining that by talking about “zones” he had actually referred to the fact that automatic focusing was never strictly continuous. That, of course, is true, if trivially so. Nothing, strictly speaking, is changing continuously, but always in small steps, including focus. Specifically, Mark mentioned that an AF motor would need some initial torque to get going, precluding continuous or arbitrarily small changes of focus, and also the limited resolution of a phase-detection AF sensor. Essentially his point seems to be that a phase-detection AF system has some limits of precision.

 

Now that is something everyone could agree on, only Mark had gone on to state that “The Leica S2 has many more zones of focus from close up to infinity versus the competition. In other words, the S2 can focus more accurately at a specific distance.” That’s quite a specific statement and while it may be true (or maybe it isn’t; frankly I have no idea), Mark appears to have no data to back it up. He doesn’t really know about the precision of the AF systems used by Hasselblad or Phase One, and neither does he have any hard data on the S2. All that remains is a subjective assessment of the S2 autofocus being faster and more accurate than the AF systems of other MF DSLRs, while virtually all his theoretical arguments turned out to be wrong.

[AlanG]

Alan, what would be a better way than prints - bearing in mind the typical use for these cameras? Surely not a pixel peeped 100% view that doesn't in any way represent how a final image would be used? I have to say that I don't see the point of an MF camera if all you are going to do is produce A4 sized prints.

 

There is no standard for the prints that is why. What printer, what paper, etc.? I see a lot of fashion and product work blown up to very large prints in stores, hotels, airports and other places. These prints are often 10 feet across or larger. That is the intended use for these cameras by many advertising shooters. So unless you are going to do top quality printing at this large size in some controlled way, I don't see how you are going to see meaningful differences between some of the MF models. (If there really are meaningful differences.)

 

Whereas shots of still life (typically food, products, watches, jewelry) and other static subjects such as landscape and architecture could generally be best accomplished with a technical camera, although the S2 and other MF DSLRs could perhaps also do a good job for some aspects of these fields. The handling characteristics of the S2 are aimed at shooting faster than one can with a technical camera. That is why I am saying that in the professional market, the target would be those who shoot fashion, portraits and other advertising or commercial assignments involving people as the subjects where the end result will often be high end applications.

 

And how is a person judging color? On the print, on the monitor? What monitor, what printer? Doesn't it have to be adjusted on a monitor before it goes to the printer? How are the files being adjusted since all these cameras capture a larger color gamut than the printer or monitor can display? This is just one person's opinion and we don't even have any idea how good that person's color perception is. What were the viewing conditions? It isn't as if he did testing with 100 viewers judging numerous images of various subjects. (For instance Kodak used to spend significant resources in getting feedback from pros and random viewers to compare images made with various emulsions under a variety of shooting situations. I know because I did some of this as a viewer and as an emulsion tester.)

 

At very fine levels these kinds of things are very subjective and hard to pin down. If you value the opinion of this person and these tests, that is your choice. Look at the Zacuto film vs. digital tests by some top Hollywood camera operators and other experts to see how much work needs to go into making really critical comparisons on a high level. And these still boil down to subjective opinions pro and con for various approaches.

 

If we can get access to the actual raw files from various cameras using comparison images shot under a variety of controlled circumstances, we can make our own decisions based on our own viewing and printing systems and our criteria. And then it comes down to usability for one's typical work. This is why it may inevitably boil down to having to do your own tests. (Which I think most any pro would do before committing to purchasing and using any system.)

 

If the market is primarily going to just be a lot of well off amateurs shooting images for their own enjoyment, it doesn't really matter as long as they are happy with the results they get with the camera and their own printer. And that is the level this reviewer is working on.

Edited June 29, 2010 by AlanG

[rosuna]

Thank you Michael for your detailed explanation.

 

Then, the only possible source for such a technical statement may be (if any) Leica. That was my impression when I read the article. But it is a possibility that the author made it up.

[rosuna]

Well I have just read the long discussion at LuLa (unnoticed to me, sorry).

 

Dubovoy seems to be collecting information on the subject for a revision:

 

Mark Dubovoy's Leica S2 Review - Luminous Landscape Forum

 

It may be interesting to see how they correct the original article.

[rosuna]

Dubovoy et al. responses:

 

Mark Dubovoy's Leica S2 Review - Luminous Landscape Forum

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mjh]

Dubovoy et al. responses:

 

Mark Dubovoy's Leica S2 Review - Luminous Landscape Forum

There’s an opportunity missed … I can certainly understand that Mark Dubovoy mainly wanted to save his face, but he could have done his readers a service by retracting or rephrasing his controversial statements. I mean, they are highly misleading. On the other hand, Hasselblad’s David Grover went a bit over the top too when he declared that the focus setting “can be moved in infinitesimally small increments” with a Hasselblad – there is no such thing as an infinitesimally small step in actual practice. What he meant, of course, was that the steps can be so small as to make no difference if they were any smaller.

 

The issue remains: Mark Dubovoy claims that the S2 does focus in smaller steps than cameras by Hasselblad or Mamiya and while that might be true, he doesn’t have the data to back it up – the relevant data just isn’t published. That’s an unfortunate state of affairs but there you have it. In the absence of any data to base a statement on, one should refrain from making such bold claims.

 

Mark Dubovoy also claims that the S2 does focus faster than the Hasselblad, Mamiya, and Phase One models he has compared it to, and that is something he could have substantiated. Why doesn’t he go on to explain what cameras and lens combinations exactly he had used in this comparison, what his testing methodology was, and by how much the AF performance and precision actually differed? Now that would certainly have been interesting.

 

By the way, some people appear to have stumbled over Leica’s quoted statement that “It is an advantage to have very small focus steps at distances approaching infinity (where you have the least depth of field), and where the lens has to focus very precisely.” Isn’t it the other way round in that depth of field grows when approaching infinity? But I take it to be the image-side depth of field Leica’s Technical Director referred to: when the distance between lens and sensor should be off by a couple of microns, this wouldn’t make much of a difference at short focus distances, but quite a lot of difference near infinity. That’s why the AF motor needs to move the lens in smaller increments when approaching infinity. The resolution limits of the AF sensor, on the other hand, don’t matter in this context.