marknorton Posted January 1, 2010 Share #21 Posted January 1, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm dismayed by these results. I'm not in the market for an S2 but I had hoped to be an interested bystander witnessing the S2 being well received. Instead - taking these posts at face value - we have a camera which is noisy at ISOs where it shouldn't be and a "cooking" lens which is off the pace. Some say we should wait for Leica to fine tune the camera; others that a new release of PP software may help. What have Leica been doing these past 15 months since a working - limping more like - prototype was shown at Photokina? It's just not excusable that this camera should come on the market at this price level and fail to meet reasonable expectations set of it. If the noise is down to sensor temperature, the Leica claim of the body providing a "massive" heat sink (not sync, btw) is suspect. Images I've seen of the S2 sensor suggest a similar three point mounting method to the M8/9 which will certainly not provide the thermal sink required. The thermal conductive paths are simply too long and inefficient to keep things cool. There needs to be a much more direct route between the sensor and the somewhere to dump the heat. Take a look in any hi-fi amplifier at the power transistors and you will see them bolted to a metal heat sink with a heat conductive paste between to ensure an intimate contact and efficient heat transfer. To keep the sensor cool, one way would be to sink the heat through the back of the sensor in a similar way, possibly using a Peltier heat pump to actively cool it. I use a pair of Nikon D3/D3x for my SLR work. They may not meet the highest IQ standards but they spoil you with excellent noise performance where, as Andy says, you can trade resolution against noise. The D3s takes things further though I have no experience of it. Right now, a D3x with Nikon's best or Zeiss glass is looking good value against the S2. If Peter's camera is representative, dissapointing doesn't begin to describe it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 Hi marknorton, Take a look here S2 low iso. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tashley Posted January 2, 2010 Share #22 Posted January 2, 2010 I'm dismayed by these results. I'm not in the market for an S2 but I had hoped to be an interested bystander witnessing the S2 being well received. Instead - taking these posts at face value - we have a camera which is noisy at ISOs where it shouldn't be and a "cooking" lens which is off the pace. Some say we should wait for Leica to fine tune the camera; others that a new release of PP software may help. What have Leica been doing these past 15 months since a working - limping more like - prototype was shown at Photokina? It's just not excusable that this camera should come on the market at this price level and fail to meet reasonable expectations set of it. If the noise is down to sensor temperature, the Leica claim of the body providing a "massive" heat sink (not sync, btw) is suspect. Images I've seen of the S2 sensor suggest a similar three point mounting method to the M8/9 which will certainly not provide the thermal sink required. The thermal conductive paths are simply too long and inefficient to keep things cool. There needs to be a much more direct route between the sensor and the somewhere to dump the heat. Take a look in any hi-fi amplifier at the power transistors and you will see them bolted to a metal heat sink with a heat conductive paste between to ensure an intimate contact and efficient heat transfer. To keep the sensor cool, one way would be to sink the heat through the back of the sensor in a similar way, possibly using a Peltier heat pump to actively cool it. I use a pair of Nikon D3/D3x for my SLR work. They may not meet the highest IQ standards but they spoil you with excellent noise performance where, as Andy says, you can trade resolution against noise. The D3s takes things further though I have no experience of it. Right now, a D3x with Nikon's best or Zeiss glass is looking good value against the S2. If Peter's camera is representative, dissapointing doesn't begin to describe it. Whoooa there Mark. I have enormous respect for you but don't be ready to join the lynch mob quite yet! You have no doubt seen that Peter's is very much a minority report here? Michael Reichmann and Guy and Jack have all made it clear that they have found the S2's noise levels to be competitive with the alternatives and in line with what they expected, if I may paraphrase a lot of stuff that I guess we've all read anyway. Peter's example may have been a one-off for any number of reasons (possible under-exposure, processing, gamut-blotches, yada yada) or it may indeed have been a noisy frame, possible from a faulty camera. But what it isn't is one in a series of images that under reasonable controlled conditions shows that the camera has problems in this area. So I don't think that one frame is representative. I have not come across this in the many frames I have so far shot with an S2, and am headed out this morning to do some test frames under identical conditions with both a P45+ and the S2, where I will use the S2 at ISO160 and the P45+ at ISO 100 and 200. I'll share the files in as much as bandwidth allows. I am very willing to be proved wrong by this test but I will be mildly surprised if I am. I'll whack some results up later. Best Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 2, 2010 Share #23 Posted January 2, 2010 Tim, I'll look forward to seeing your results and certainly hope I am proved wrong! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 2, 2010 Author Share #24 Posted January 2, 2010 mark, i totally agree that (the model of) the S2 (which I had) was a bad underperformer, even at base iso. i have no idea whether this is representatiive for all the cameras the built and are building. and yes, amzazingly low progress on leica's part in 15 months time. this just confirms to me that they went out of their bounds with the S2. tim, you know very well that the noise i found is not due to processing or to underexposure, we went through that. on the other hand i do not negate that to some extent you can fix it in PP by either moving the black point or plain noise removal. i do not need to tell you that this has other negative side effects. it just should not happen at base iso. basta. and if you read guy&jack's review carefully they talk about noise at high isos mainly when comparing to other MF offerings. this is entirely different than noise at base iso. nevertheless, enjoy your S2, although i think you will also find issues with it. peter Whoooa there Mark. I have enormous respect for you but don't be ready to join the lynch mob quite yet! You have no doubt seen that Peter's is very much a minority report here? Michael Reichmann and Guy and Jack have all made it clear that they have found the S2's noise levels to be competitive with the alternatives and in line with what they expected, if I may paraphrase a lot of stuff that I guess we've all read anyway. Peter's example may have been a one-off for any number of reasons (possible under-exposure, processing, gamut-blotches, yada yada) or it may indeed have been a noisy frame, possible from a faulty camera. But what it isn't is one in a series of images that under reasonable controlled conditions shows that the camera has problems in this area. So I don't think that one frame is representative. I have not come across this in the many frames I have so far shot with an S2, and am headed out this morning to do some test frames under identical conditions with both a P45+ and the S2, where I will use the S2 at ISO160 and the P45+ at ISO 100 and 200. I'll share the files in as much as bandwidth allows. I am very willing to be proved wrong by this test but I will be mildly surprised if I am. I'll whack some results up later. Best Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 2, 2010 Share #25 Posted January 2, 2010 tim, you know very well that the noise i found is not due to processing or to underexposure, we went through that. on the other hand i do not negate that to some extent you can fix it in PP by either moving the black point or plain noise removal. i do not need to tell you that this has other negative side effects. it just should not happen at base iso. basta. and if you read guy&jack's review carefully they talk about noise at high isos mainly when comparing to other MF offerings. this is entirely different than noise at base iso. nevertheless, enjoy your S2, although i think you will also find issues with it. peter Peter, with respect, you went through that with other people: I didn't really have a view on it myself and therefore didn't express an opinion either here or on GetDPI. Since I have not seen this effect myself, or certainly not in a way which is beyond what I would expect, I still don't have a strong opinion on what caused it in your case which is why I said above... 'any number of reasons (possible under-exposure, processing, gamut-blotches, yada yada) or it may indeed have been a noisy frame, possible from a faulty camera. But what it isn't is one in a series of images that under reasonable controlled conditions shows that the camera has problems in this area' As it happens I'm still trying to assess mine. You know from our private conversation that I have indeed spotted at least one other issue and that as a result of that, mine may itself get returned or at least will need to be fixed or replaced... but as for the noise issue, I continue to conduct experiments to try to replicate what you found but so far without success. However, I just shot a bunch of new frames so watch this space... Best Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted January 2, 2010 Share #26 Posted January 2, 2010 The biggest worry for me is the quality control issue. There was a suggestion that S the lenses would be reference lenses, each one being carefully manufactured within a narrow tolerance band, and the body and its internals almost lovingly crafted and calibrated. I don't know how many S2s and 70mm lenses had been produced when Peter's body and lens came off the production line, but one would assume that for such an important product for Leica's survival the first batch would be near to perfect - at least from a mechanical/optical point of view. Issues with the electronics, solvable with firmware, is kind of acceptable, but a poor performing lens (if indeed that was the case with Peter's 70mm) is highly damaging, and adds to the seemingly endless quality control/performance issues that's plagued Leica over the past 4 years. Like MarkNorton, I'm watching with hope that Leica can pull this off. However, I'm no longer prepared to accept repeatedly flawed products. And whilst I was never in the market for the S2, it has made me even more suspicious of anything digital with a Leica badge on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephengilbert Posted January 2, 2010 Share #27 Posted January 2, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) "You know from our private conversation that I have indeed spotted at least one other issue and that as a result of that, mine may itself get returned or at least will need to be fixed or replaced..." Excuse me? You may return your S2 as well, for an undisclosed reason? Thank you for your openness. After all, you wouldn't want to say anything in public that might damage Leica. Just tell us the good stuff, Tim, that's all you know who* want to hear. Steve * Don't want to upset anyone by the use of derogatory terms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 2, 2010 Share #28 Posted January 2, 2010 "You know from our private conversation that I have indeed spotted at least one other issue and that as a result of that, mine may itself get returned or at least will need to be fixed or replaced..." Excuse me? You may return your S2 as well, for an undisclosed reason? Thank you for your openness. After all, you wouldn't want to say anything in public that might damage Leica. Just tell us the good stuff, Tim, that's all you know who* want to hear. Steve * Don't want to upset anyone by the use of derogatory terms. Steve, please bear with me. I am trying to run a series of useful tests primarily to ascertain whether the S2 is good enough for my own needs and how it and its glass perform according to a number of parameters and in particular in comparison to my extensive Phase One setup. I am trying to do that both for myself and in order to present my findings, in case they are useful to anyone else, in an orderly manner. It is not my intention to hide anything, nor will I, and in fact I have already shared the issue I have discovered privately with several people and will report it here in good time. Also, for the record, I have a long track record of finding and reporting problems with Leica (and other manufacturers') products and have never been less than thorough in sharing my findings. I was told by someone recently that the development of the upcoming new version of the 35 lux M was initiated by my publicity regarding focus shift issues. Similarly I am on their case about 'red shift' on the M9. This sort of enterprise is a team effort, which is why I refer people to the findings of other people too: no one catches everything and different serial numbers might report different issues. It's just tougher than usual with the S2 because it's price and hype set it up as an Aunt Sally, because so many people who have had a c**p experience with other Leica products want, possibly quite justifiably, to have a rant, and because there are so few S2's being put through their paces by people who report their findings so the sample group is tiny. But if I can be bothered to assess it thoroughly for my own purposes I can't see why I shouldn't a) Share the results invite other people to help me interpret them I'm no fanboy. In fact I'm the opposite: Leica's slack QC and naive PR irritate me. And if the S2 fails to do what it says on the tin, it's going back, for sure. But thus far, I like it. Best Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flesher Posted January 2, 2010 Share #29 Posted January 2, 2010 Tim, I think Steve's point is that if you want to maintain credibility as an unbiased tester, ANY reason you need to send any camera back to a manufacturer for repair should be disclosed... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 2, 2010 Share #30 Posted January 2, 2010 Tim, I think Steve's point is that if you want to maintain credibility as an unbiased tester, ANY reason you need to send any camera back to a manufacturer for repair should be disclosed... Oh I totally agree - and I have made it clear that I will disclose it, as has always been my intention. The fact of that disclosure is no issue but I do want to test out the real issues first, rather than make a big fuss about something that needs fixing but is almost certainly just an anomaly of my particular camera. I didn't disclose it up front because IMHO it is a side show and I didn't want to put it centre stage when so much rotten fruit is ready for the throwing :D:D but I did mention it to you, Peter and one other person at least, privately for now, and I did mention in a thread that there was such a discovery. I'll open a thread on it soon when I have finished testing my main-course issues! Best Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 2, 2010 Author Share #31 Posted January 2, 2010 I'm dismayed by these results. I'm not in the market for an S2 but I had hoped to be an interested bystander witnessing the S2 being well received. Instead - taking these posts at face value - we have a camera which is noisy at ISOs where it shouldn't be and a "cooking" lens which is off the pace. Some say we should wait for Leica to fine tune the camera; others that a new release of PP software may help. What have Leica been doing these past 15 months since a working - limping more like - prototype was shown at Photokina? It's just not excusable that this camera should come on the market at this price level and fail to meet reasonable expectations set of it. If the noise is down to sensor temperature, the Leica claim of the body providing a "massive" heat sink (not sync, btw) is suspect. Images I've seen of the S2 sensor suggest a similar three point mounting method to the M8/9 which will certainly not provide the thermal sink required. The thermal conductive paths are simply too long and inefficient to keep things cool. There needs to be a much more direct route between the sensor and the somewhere to dump the heat. Take a look in any hi-fi amplifier at the power transistors and you will see them bolted to a metal heat sink with a heat conductive paste between to ensure an intimate contact and efficient heat transfer. To keep the sensor cool, one way would be to sink the heat through the back of the sensor in a similar way, possibly using a Peltier heat pump to actively cool it. I use a pair of Nikon D3/D3x for my SLR work. They may not meet the highest IQ standards but they spoil you with excellent noise performance where, as Andy says, you can trade resolution against noise. The D3s takes things further though I have no experience of it. Right now, a D3x with Nikon's best or Zeiss glass is looking good value against the S2. If Peter's camera is representative, dissapointing doesn't begin to describe it. mark, OF the D3s seems to have the best color response of all nikon DSLR, see ilha borg's postings in the DP review forum. i am not done with testing it.... peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 3, 2010 Share #32 Posted January 3, 2010 here is an S2 shot, 70mm lens, iso 160, f5.7. developed in C1, sharpening and noise reduction turned off. please take a look (100%) at the windows and the roof. there is a lot of color noise around, which-IMHO- should not be there at base iso. makes me worried.peter Hi Peter, do you think that this picture is done with "all to get out of the camera"..?... looks very soft and underexposed...what was your plan, doing in C1...i see only a "out of the box" picture underexposed, that's why the noise is so high and nothing done in C1.... sorry for my poor english.... regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted January 3, 2010 Share #33 Posted January 3, 2010 looks very soft and underexposed...what was your plan, doing in C1...i see only a "out of the box" picture underexposed, that's why the noise is so high and nothing done in C1.... I'm having similar thoughts btw - the jazz CD covers on your site are very good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 3, 2010 Author Share #34 Posted January 3, 2010 I'm having similar thoughts btw - the jazz CD covers on your site are very good i did a comparism (albeit flawed) with the H3D 50, with the 35-90mm zoom lens at 80mm, which corresponds more or less to 70mm on the S2. i put the hasselblad to 50 iso which is base iso for the camera (i do think that it is fair to compare base iso to base iso, others may deviate). this shot maybe 1/3 of a stop underexposed but please keep in mind that it was early morning in vienna, darkish and snowing (the whiteish blotches you see are snow flakes not artifacts). RAW conversion done in phocus 2, with all modifications (including lens opt) turned off, for fairness' sake. clearly the hasselblad outresolves the S2, but this is not the üoint here. my point is that it produces the much cleaner file. but please draw your own conclusions. peter Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108101-s2-low-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1172578'>More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted January 3, 2010 Share #35 Posted January 3, 2010 If you pixelpeep (blow up images to 100% on a screen), you will see noise on the S2 and the M9 that you didn't see on the DMR or M8. Because the 100% is simply a bigger file. What you should be looking for is color rendering and three-dimensional imagery; because if you blow up a Canon 1ds Mark III file you will see a graphical flat two-dimensional and very clean image (however, that's not how skin, hair, eyes or threes look like). But it's more interesting discussing actual problems in great pictures which prevent them from being perfect, than it is discussing potential problems in pictures that no matter which camera used, wouldn't make it to print. The S2 images I've viewed looks great straight out of Lightroom (which is the software supplied with the camera) and I've seen noise in 640 ISO images from the S2 - but not enough to ruin the picture - and it was anyways the pre-release software. Likewise there never existed a grain-free film, a grain-free or noise-free digital image doesn't exist. They just look like that in print, and that's what is important because no images will ever be used in 100% online anyways. Only for pixelpeeping which is a leisure of no practical use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 3, 2010 Author Share #36 Posted January 3, 2010 and here are the same shots with Nikon D3x, at (base) iso 100, nikor 50mm f.1.4, at f4.5. note that it got somewhat brighter meanwhile but the D3x tends to slughtly overexpose anyway. just one comment on 'the noise in the S2 shot appears because it is underexposed'. this is of course rubbish. underexposed shots do not exhibit more noise than normal exposed ones UNLESS tthe dark zones get lifted up in PP. also the S2 shots are not soft, the focus point is just above the window which is perfect. the tiles are out of focus due to small DOF and due to the fact that the 70mm lens i had was not optimal in the left upper corner. peter Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108101-s2-low-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1172589'>More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 3, 2010 Author Share #37 Posted January 3, 2010 Hi Peter, do you think that this picture is done with "all to get out of the camera"..?... looks very soft and underexposed...what was your plan, doing in C1...i see only a "out of the box" picture underexposed, that's why the noise is so high and nothing done in C1.... sorry for my poor english.... regards, Jan jan, 'all to get out of the camera' yes, but certainly not all to get out of PP. on the contrary, i did not PP the picture at all. as i already said, it is not soft, the focus point is just above the window (tack sharp in 100%). the tiles are OOF due to thin DOF and due to the fact that the 70mm lens i had has a bad upper left corner. underexposed pictures (and it is not underexposed IMHO) do not per se show more noise unles the shadows get lifted up in PP. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 3, 2010 Author Share #38 Posted January 3, 2010 uuuuppps, sorry, just realized i did not post the 100% crops of the H3D II 50 pics. here they are. peter Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108101-s2-low-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1172615'>More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 3, 2010 Share #39 Posted January 3, 2010 here is an S2 shot, 70mm lens, iso 160, f5.7. developed in C1, sharpening and noise reduction turned off. please take a look (100%) at the windows and the roof. there is a lot of color noise around, which-IMHO- should not be there at base iso. makes me worried.peter Hi Peter, "developed in C1".....but what have you done there?.....look at the "tone range" you can see that the setting of the highlight is not done....(and you can see, even after your seting in C1, how far the highlight are away from a perfect exposed picture) regards, Jan Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108101-s2-low-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1173054'>More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 3, 2010 Author Share #40 Posted January 3, 2010 Hi Peter, "developed in C1".....but what have you done there?.....look at the "tone range" you can see that the setting of the highlight is not done....(and you can see, even after your seting in C1, how far the highlight are away from a perfect exposed picture) regards, Jan [ATTACH]181055[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]181056[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]181057[/ATTACH] jan, the tonal range of the scene did not range from 0-255. as you see the histogramm does not touch to the left, so the picture is not underexposed. certainly 2/3 stops of addional exposure are possible but it would render the scene brighter than it was. also,let me reiterate, even underexposure does not increase noise. only if you push the highlights afterwards. anyway, no matter, the S2 is back and my money too. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.