markowich Posted November 13, 2009 Share #21 Posted November 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I simply cannot believe how much whining these horrible dpreview-samples create on the net... Just google for it, just links to those samples... Of course the IQ is way superior to any DSLR (larger photosites and sensor, no AA-filter, way superior lenses), here's the link to a nice "ISO320-handheld-open-aperture".sample from Mr. Farkas' review: http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/shareID6403983/fileID424567217/424567217.jpg 100%-crop: http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/shareID6403983/fileID424698627/424698627.jpg Yes, you could achieve a similar quality with a P40+ and Rodenstock-lenses - but the handling is quite different... Maybe Leica should think twice before not publishing any samples themselves and relying on dpreview instead... could you please explain us where all that supposed IQ performance advantage of the S2 is? the jpgs look worse than D3x in-camera jpgs. they are full of every artifact possible. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Hi markowich, Take a look here S2 images on DPreview. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wildlightphoto Posted November 13, 2009 Share #22 Posted November 13, 2009 Sigh ... is that what you want to show off after blowing $20k+ on a camera? try this one: So freaking what? The photo I posted was a response to a comment that there were no images that suggested the S2 was suitable for outdoor use. What's your problem, Simon? You're going back on the ignore list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 13, 2009 Share #23 Posted November 13, 2009 So freaking what? The photo I posted was a response to a comment that there were no images that suggested the S2 was suitable for outdoor use. What's your problem, Simon? You're going back on the ignore list. I guess we are not on the same page, Doug ... but that's ok. I'm glad you find the ignore list useful in my case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 13, 2009 Share #24 Posted November 13, 2009 sdai; what make and model of toothbrush is that? Looks like it does a mighty fine job! I didn't take those pictures, Darth Vader ... there were posted on a Korean forum several years ago and I saved them on my computer and show to people just for fun. The guy gave a bath to his 1Ds and then used a hair dryer to dry it, there was another wacky picture showing him tooth brushed inside the mount and the metal contacts, nothing happened afterwards, it's just too bad that picture corrupted and I can't upload it here. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted November 14, 2009 Share #25 Posted November 14, 2009 "could you please explain us where all that supposed IQ performance advantage of the S2 is? the jpgs look worse than D3x in-camera jpgs. they are full of every artifact possible." Stop looking at dpreview-images, Mr. Farkas samples are mostly as artifact-free as an bayer-interolated image (jpg-compressed for web) can be. The goose is just one example, even 12MP-FF-DSLRs despite their larger pixel-pitch don't achieve that 100%-quality. Even moire is nearly abscent - that might be an effect of special filtering-tools in post, though. Or this one: http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/shareID6403983/fileID424696740/424696740.jpg Every single leaf is clearly visible from a distance of probably way over 100m. These shots have nothing in common with the dpreview-samples, just forget about them whatever caused their lack of quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted November 14, 2009 Share #26 Posted November 14, 2009 The S2 undoubtably works well in good light, as has been proven by David Farkas's pictures. However, the Dpreview photos suggest that if you throw a dull day at the camera, the resulting files are poor - or at least the Jpegs are. The weather sealing will turn out to be pretty pointless if the camera can only be used on a sunny day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted November 14, 2009 Share #27 Posted November 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The weather sealing will turn out to be pretty pointless if the camera can only be used on a sunny day. When I'm on a long hike and the weather turns foul I'd rather have a weather-sealed camera even if I'm not making pictures of the foul weather. Also would have been handy when the thunderstorm hit me while kayaking with the R8/DMR. I was able to keep the camera covered, just barely, and another few minutes would have been trouble. Or even just splashes while kayaking. Weather sealing doesn't sound pointless to me at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 14, 2009 Share #28 Posted November 14, 2009 I know everyone here wants to pronounce on the S2's image quality before the production version of the camera is even out, but seriously, some of the things people say here are downright silly. There are a couple of preliminary DNGs floating around and I have to say they show promise in terms of sheer detail. Not perfection, but promise nonetheless. GIven that I was jury-rigging a profile in C1, the colour was very nice too (and reminiscent to me of the DMR). And BTW, the only reason anyone would use JPEG on the S2 is to proof. I'm sure whatever it's outputting it's good enough for proofing. @ Simon--BTW--there's a heck of a difference between showering with a capped body and pouring water directly over a lens seal, sorry. I know one is more dramatic, graphically, but I also know which one is more impressive to me. Oh, and that Canon will be cavity-free for a long time @ Doug--thanks for posting the S2 shot! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted November 14, 2009 Share #29 Posted November 14, 2009 "could you please explain us where all that supposed IQ performance advantage of the S2 is? the jpgs look worse than D3x in-camera jpgs. they are full of every artifact possible." Stop looking at dpreview-images, Mr. Farkas samples are mostly as artifact-free as an bayer-interolated image (jpg-compressed for web) can be. The goose is just one example, even 12MP-FF-DSLRs despite their larger pixel-pitch don't achieve that 100%-quality. Even moire is nearly abscent - that might be an effect of special filtering-tools in post, though. Or this one: http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/shareID6403983/fileID424696740/424696740.jpg Every single leaf is clearly visible from a distance of probably way over 100m. These shots have nothing in common with the dpreview-samples, just forget about them whatever caused their lack of quality. farkas' shoots only prove food resolution in bright light. nothing special. have you seen what the P65+ with HC lenses can do under such conditons? what i see is a slight improvement to D3x UNDER THE BEST SHOOTING CONDITIONS only. not enough. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share #30 Posted November 14, 2009 I dont think we are looking at jpg files straight from the camera in all the DPreview photos. Those taken of the buildings on the north bank of the the Thames from the south bank have 'acr' or 'raw' in the file names. And those are the ones I am looking at for detail. There is one photo in the M9 set taken with a 90mm lens of the same north bank area, that makes an interesting comparison although the light is better for the M9. Apart from the dull weather it also possible that the London air was not the cleanest. The photographs taken at closer distances, the model and HMS Belfast show plenty of detail. Phil Askey has commented in one of the threads over at DPreview about the weather and has mentioned more samples coming up. But the S2 will be required to take photographs in these conditions, wont it? And maybe that includes landscape photos. David Farkas shot the S2 at the other end of the light spectrum, so we have samples from both ends so to speak. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 14, 2009 Share #31 Posted November 14, 2009 Bad light is bad light. Any camera will struggle to take a technically great photograph is the light is no good. It doesn't matter if its an S2, M8 or Canon/Nikon. Some people seem to be making sweeping statements about the camera based on photographs taken under less than ideal conditions. That's their right, but I think it's unfair to both Leica and he original photographers to draw such firm conclusions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted November 15, 2009 Share #32 Posted November 15, 2009 Bad light is bad light. Any camera will struggle to take a technically great photograph is the light is no good. It doesn't matter if its an S2, M8 or Canon/Nikon. Some people seem to be making sweeping statements about the camera based on photographs taken under less than ideal conditions. That's their right, but I think it's unfair to both Leica and he original photographers to draw such firm conclusions. bad light is where good or bad tonality of images shows up.peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 15, 2009 Share #33 Posted November 15, 2009 I am not suggesting that one can reach any final conclusion based on the DPR images as in this price range I would expect a trial run with a loaner to use as you would in your work to see how it compares with what you have. However, at a starting number of $30K+ for body, lens and accessories, I don't think you want to be told that; "sorry the weather and lighting are bad so you won't get good images with this camera." Maybe for a $300 camera that would be OK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 15, 2009 Share #34 Posted November 15, 2009 I don't think you want to be told that; "sorry the weather and lighting are bad so you won't get good images with this camera." Maybe for a $300 camera that would be OK. But if the light is flat and dull you'll get low contrast photographs with muted colours, I don't see how you'll get anything else no matter what the camera costs. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what would you expect a more expensive camera to do differently from a cheaper one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 15, 2009 Share #35 Posted November 15, 2009 My critiques was not aimed at the muted colors but rather at the loss of resolution. The detail that is stunning in some pictures is completely absent in others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted November 15, 2009 Share #36 Posted November 15, 2009 Lets not forget the operator. What comes out of the camera in sunshine and in overcast, it typically dictated by the operator. DPreview sample shots have never been known for artistic benchmarks. As I have said before, please leica, load a couple of S2 cameras to some competent fashion shooters, some commercial guys and let a couple of car guys take this for a spin. Samy's just informed me they will have a 2-3 days Leica-shoot on Dec 15th... "with a model and lights upstairs" - Im horrified, it will litter the web with more dull model shots in controlled light. Nothing is going to show what the camera can do until it get dragged through the trenches of real work. Im looking at the storm in a glass about the shots and performance of the M9.... this could be a long year. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted November 15, 2009 Share #37 Posted November 15, 2009 Samy's just informed me they will have a 2-3 days Leica-shoot on Dec 15th... "with a model and lights upstairs" - Im horrified, it will litter the web with more dull model shots in controlled light. Nothing is going to show what the camera can do until it get dragged through the trenches of real work. I agree, enough of the controlled shoots. I'd like to see some real stuff. Nothing shows problems like real work does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted November 16, 2009 Share #38 Posted November 16, 2009 (with the exception of DFarkas and a few others) The majority of review attempts and internet comments about the S2 are starting to sound like rednecks attempting a wine tasting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 16, 2009 Share #39 Posted November 16, 2009 Puh leeze give me a break. We all have eyes and we don't have anything to sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 16, 2009 Share #40 Posted November 16, 2009 Puh leeze give me a break. We all have eyes and we don't have anything to sell. Yes, and those eyes, so far, are all pointed to dubiously made JPEGs viewed through a browser and are owned by (mostly) amateur photographers... hence the weird non-understanding of 1) flatness as a virtue of high-end output 2) the inability of a photographic technology to take advantage of "bad light" (which is NOT where tonality comes out ??) and 3) the willingness to jump to judgement on pre-production firmware, dodgy RAW output and so on. IOW, looking at dPreview and expecting to tell anything from the JPEGs there is as ridiculous as some of their lens reviews. Honestly, except for creating buzz, I don't even know why dPreview bothered with the S2. It's not like they do previews of the latest Hassy or Phase back, is it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.