stunsworth Posted October 26, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 26, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) From a post on the LUG... PhotoPlus Expo 2009: Testing the Leica S2 (Sample Images) Impressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here S2 images from final version of the camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
markowich Posted October 26, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 26, 2009 From a post on the LUG... PhotoPlus Expo 2009: Testing the Leica S2 (Sample Images) Impressive. steve, what is 'impressive' except the jpg artifacts (not the camera's fault) and the high levels of noise in dark(er) areas? any medium format camera (back) that i know of (with the exception of the atique kodak 16mpx back) prouces better files. nikon D3x gets there, also. please clarify 'impressive'. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 26, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted October 26, 2009 Ok, they're crap, my mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 26, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 26, 2009 Not your mistake, Steve but the second sample certainly is a piece of crap probably because ACR is a piece of crap. Leica should stop these bootleg images floating on the web and release some official sample DNGs ideally exposed by trained hands for interesting parties to download and play with. This sort of funky stuff is not going to help their business nor help potential customers to make any good judgement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarek Posted October 26, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 26, 2009 Ok, they're crap, my mistake. Right! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted October 26, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 26, 2009 Ok, they're crap, my mistake. I love your response There's just no reason to feed the S2 haters anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtomalty Posted October 27, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica should stop these bootleg images floating on the web and release some official sample DNGs ideally exposed by trained hands. What is doubly baffling to me is that Leica has positioned well-regarded fine art photographer, Amy Koch, as part of the S2 product team and still there are no useful files forthcoming. You would think it would be a no-brainer to set her free to produce a decent set of images and at the same time be able to control the release of any problem files. Mark Mark Tomalty Photography Montreal Canada Travel Landscape Stock FineArt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 27, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 27, 2009 Leica should [...] release some official sample DNGs ideally exposed by trained hands for interesting parties to download and play with. I think uninteresting parties should also be able to download them, to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted October 27, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 27, 2009 I love your response There's just no reason to feed the S2 haters anymore. in case you are talking about me let me clarify that i am neither a leica hater nor an S2 hater (why should one hate a camera???). but i know a good file when i see it. and those files are not good. be it the camera, the raw converter, the photographer...i do not know. but a junk files remains a junk file even when it is produced by a leica. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted October 27, 2009 ...why should one hate a camera??? I agree it's silly, but still people do have an emotional attachment to their chosen camera. You only have to read what some Nikon users say about Canon (and vice versa) to see that's the case. I have to say that I think calling the files 'junk' is an emotional response rather than a considered one. The amount of detail in the irises tells me at least that that's an over reaction. You may feel that whatever system you've invested in produces superior results, but I don't think you are offering a balanced view. I'm sure I could take your system and produce worse results than that shown in the two samples on the web page. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted October 27, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 27, 2009 I agree it's silly, but still people do have an emotional attachment to their chosen camera. You only have to read what some Nikon users say about Canon (and vice versa) to see that's the case. I have to say that I think calling the files 'junk' is an emotional response rather than a considered one. The amount of detail in the irises tells me at least that that's an over reaction. You may feel that whatever system you've invested in produces superior results, but I don't think you are offering a balanced view. I'm sure I could take your system and produce worse results than that shown in the two samples on the web page. a 37mpx camera (with supposedly good lenses) is going to produce a corresponding resolution of detail, there is no surprise there. no matter whether you use mamiya, phase or hasselblad, center image resolution will only depend on the mpx number and to some extent on the software used for RAW conversion. IQ has other central issues like tonal transition, rendering of dark areas etc. i reiterate that the presented files are poor in all those latter respects. and i reiterate that it my have many different reasons, which we (at least i) do not know. i did not pass judgement on the camera system, just on those files i have seen. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted October 27, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 27, 2009 I agree it's silly, but still people do have an emotional attachment to their chosen camera. You only have to read what some Nikon users say about Canon (and vice versa) to see that's the case. I have to say that I think calling the files 'junk' is an emotional response rather than a considered one. The amount of detail in the irises tells me at least that that's an over reaction. You may feel that whatever system you've invested in produces superior results, but I don't think you are offering a balanced view. I'm sure I could take your system and produce worse results than that shown in the two samples on the web page. Thank you, that is exactly right Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 27, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 27, 2009 Developed those DNG files with C1v4: YouSendIt - Send large files - transfer delivery - FTP Replacement Hardly see any artefact. Am i missing something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted October 28, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 28, 2009 Poor model. Imagine having images so sharp they show every pore and zit on your face. Similar to my experience last week, where I didnt want to return the camera after playing with it. Combination of lens and camera is very impressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitz Posted October 30, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 30, 2009 Are there any sample files to be downloaded (full res .dng) that are not models in studios? There are a few car pictures on flicker, but they are not downloadable full .dng. You guys who have the S2 cameras, help us. We'ld really like to see some files of different subjects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 30, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 30, 2009 Same here. What's interesting is how it behaves outside, in blazing sun, the bokeh, etc. I reckon that the "Hasselblad segment" like to blow up pictures and count the sharp hairs shot in a studio. But the real interesting thing is how it handles light and colors outside studio light. The sample S2 with 70mm I tried to handle looked really interesting as to bokeh and light handling though the viewfinder. But a hires file would be very interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitz Posted October 31, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 31, 2009 I guess no forum member has an S2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share #18 Posted October 31, 2009 Since the camera isn't on sale yet you are possibly correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted October 31, 2009 Share #19 Posted October 31, 2009 Why spoil the image for a halfpenny worth of light? A simple Lastolite TriFlector would have given a better result. And if using a professional model she needs a decent make-up job. Unless they particularly wished to show the skin in that way. Cheers dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitz Posted November 1, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 1, 2009 The images on Flickr are by "L1000014" with a copywrite of dims 2009 and taken on 20 October. The EXIF data shows that the rights are owned by Leica Camera AG. We are told that some Leica folks read this forum. So forum members do have images of subjects other than models that they are not making available for whatever reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.