How would S2 images in LFI compare to an M9?

[Guest BigSplash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This months LFI shows some excellent images by Peter Bialobrzeski of scenes in Hamburg Harbour using the S2 with a 35mm lens. The images have been taken at 8 to 24 seconds exposure. They are certainly IMHO superb images but I wonder:

1. Could similar images have been taken with a M9 (or M8)? I guess not but what would be the difference in the final image at this size of print?
   
2. What advantage does the S2 and its lenses have for this kind of photography (buildings) compared to a Phase One or Hasselblad? I can relate to the S2 being easier to handle for fashion shoots compared to its competitors, but on a tripod at 8 - 24 seconds exposure maybe this is not so important.
   

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Are you going to judge that on photographs that went through a printing press?

Having said that, I agree that the photographs were excellent and inspiring.

[Guest BigSplash]

Are you going to judge that on photographs that went through a printing press?

Having said that, I agree that the photographs were excellent and inspiring.

 

Jaapv obviously not.

 

I am just intrigued what would the images look like if shot with a M9...Bluntly would there be any difference as seen after it has gone through a printing press? Would there be any difference if viewed at A3 or A2 size on a quality print?

 

A also am intrigued how the S2 compares to the competition for this kind of photography? I am sure that it is a world beater for fashion photos because the camera is more compact, and easier to handle

 

Jaapv any feedback? I am NOT planning to buy a S2 incidentally I am just curious. I also think , and mam probably totally wrong that I could do roughly the same shots with an M8.

[yanidel]

Are you going to judge that on photographs that went through a printing press?

Having said that, I agree that the photographs were excellent and inspiring.

I usually am not too interested in urban landscapes but I must admit that I got stuck looking at them for quite a while. Wonderful compositions and moods, a great photographer.

Like the OP, I am curious to know what you have been the output had the M9 been used.

[andybarton]

The only way to find out is for Frank to buy an S2 and an M9 and experiment for himself.

[Guest BigSplash]

The only way to find out is for Frank to buy an S2 and an M9 and experiment for himself.

 

Not true I plan to take the same shots when I next go to Hamburg and visit my parents in Flensburg area. I shall use my M8...hopefully others will do it for me sooner.

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think we can effectively compare only photo prints and there it is much like film, size matters all else being equal.

 

M8 16x24 M9 24 x36 S2 45x60 ? The S2 is way far out of my league so I don`t remember details.

 

Based on width alone because ratios are different I think, a S2 could make a print 2.5 times as wide as the M8. You do the math for the M9.

 

A little more on point, my APS C sensor cams can already make a perfect 8x10 for low ISO setting. How could a S2 improve on that. At some size or higher ISO, the S2 will pull ahead, maybe 11x14 or 16x20.

[lars_bergquist]

Are you going to judge that on photographs that went through a printing press?

Having said that, I agree that the photographs were excellent and inspiring.

What IS a MF camera for, if not magazine print? The secret private rites of pixel fetishists? The people who crank out two by three meter prints and then scrutinize them through a high power magnifier, square inch by square inch? Pretty small market segment, I'd say.

 

The old man who came out from the wet darkroom

[Guest BigSplash]

I have seen great A3 photos, done by Brett on a M9 of landscapes. These had great detail when viewed up close, superb colour rendering and blacks were deep black. I believe an M8 would present a very similar result.

 

I can easily accept that M8 / M9 may start losing the definition battle for a poster the size of a house..Fortunately I do not do many of these.

 

I print my photos as A8 and occasionaly A3..maybe one day I might go to A2 but that is it. So what I am reading here is that there may be little difference at that size between M8, M9, S2 as far as image quality is concerned.

 

If you take LFI photos shot during the last months with the M9 or look at Jonothan Slack's book I see at this page size little or no difference to those shot with the S2. I could also imagine that the image used in a magazine may also be required for a poster and here I believe S2 would come into its own.

 

I actually expected to hear about contrast, depth of colour issues being the main differentiator for these landscape photos. I also expected to hear about vignetting and colour correction across the image being better with a S2 as possibly the lens does not require the dramatic bending of light that the M9 does.

[andybarton]

Not true I plan to take the same shots when I next go to Hamburg and visit my parents in Flensburg area. I shall use my M8...hopefully others will do it for me sooner.

 

In which case you will be comparing an M8 shot (taken under completely different conditions from the originals) with a magazine print taken with the S2.

 

Unless you take the same shot, under the same conditions, with the two cameras you are wanting to compare, then any comparison is a bit lacking.

 

I can't exactly see what you are hoping to achieve here.

 

FWIW, I have 20 x 30 inch prints of my work, taken with the DMR or scanned (by me) film on my walls, and there is nothing wrong with the quality of them at all.

[Guest BigSplash]

In which case you will be comparing an M8 shot (taken under completely different conditions from the originals) with a magazine print taken with the S2.

 

Unless you take the same shot, under the same conditions, with the two cameras you are wanting to compare, then any comparison is a bit lacking.

 

I can't exactly see what you are hoping to achieve here.

 

FWIW, I have 20 x 30 inch prints of my work, taken with the DMR or scanned (by me) film on my walls, and there is nothing wrong with the quality of them at all.

 

Andy you are correct that a true comparison can only be made with M8, M9, S2 side by side taken at the same time with the same lens angle and aperture..

 

I also have a 80 x 40 cm colour print that I took with a Leica M6 of Royal Yacht Britannia leaving Cowes week for the very last time. This 35mm film shot exhibits great detail and colour depth etc., and I suppose that a M8 digital would be similar at ISO 160.

 

What I am trying to achieve (or understand) is would a M9 or S2 yield a better image than the M8? If it is different then how is it different?

 

Brett's M9 landscape and my image of Britannia showed the pin prick detail of Britannia's rigging wires, and telephone lines of the landscape. Sure I guess you could get the magnifying glass out and see if these wires are blurred bt for an A3 size print it seems OK to me.

 

I am clearly missing something otherwise naively why would anyone use Hasselblads, Phase Ones or S2's....or has sensor and film technology moved the boundaries for prints up to A3 / A2?

[andybarton]

 

I also have a 80 x 40 cm colour print that I took with a Leica M6 of Royal Yacht Britannia leaving Cowes week for the very last time. This 35mm film shot exhibits great detail and colour depth etc., and I suppose that a M8 digital would be similar at ISO 160.

 

It might be, but if your film print was printed optically, then maybe not.

 

I can't help you. Sorry. But, obviously, you can't use the same lens on all three of your cameras in your ficticious test.

 

I am not in the market for an M9 or an S2 and don't need prints any larger than the 20 x 30 that I occasionally do now.

 

There will be plenty of people who are in my position, and who, frankly, don't care very much whether there is a system, made by anyone, capable of being pixel-peeped at 20 feet x 30 feet prints.

[Guest BigSplash]

I also am not in the market for a S2, nor prints 20 x 30 feet. I am interested in up to A2 / A3 and usually no larger than A4......and I think that is what most people need. I would suggest that pros mostly do not require larger prints for magazines and perhaps the odd poster. So why would anyone buy a S2 or Hasselblad etc ....I am intrigued to know if there is a reason with today's technology anymore.

 

Twenty years ago film technology was perhaps too grainy at 35mm compared to 120 film for excellent prints at A2, or it lacked colour depth. The quality of images I am getting with my M8 suggest to me that things have moved on and it is perhaps no longer the case.

 

Three years ago I was in Porto Venere and watched the advertising shoot for a world famous perfume brand. They needed movie (cinema quality) and still images. It was all done digitally (even the movie) and the photographer was already then considering moving towards 35mm if sensor technology progress continued at the pace seen then.

[Rolo]

a true comparison can only be made with M8, M9, S2 side by side taken at the same time with the same lens angle and aperture.

 

If you truly consider the consequences of your statement, it'll become clear to you why the M8 can never match the M9 and the same for the S2. That is until the great leveller of 300 dpi plays it's part.

 

Three weeks ago I ran a quick test of my M9 against my Hasselblad CFV digital back and it's now all crystal clear to me. Try it.

[jaapv]

I can only say that if I already notice smoother transitions in colour and contrast between the M8 and M9 with the relatively small size difference in sensor, even on medium-sized prints,the S2 must beat those two by a fair margin.Or any medium format system for that matter. Nothing new there. it has been so for many decades.

[Guest BigSplash]

If you truly consider the consequences of your statement, it'll become clear to you why the M8 can never match the M9 and the same for the S2. That is until the great leveller of 300 dpi plays it's part.

 

Three weeks ago I ran a quick test of my M9 against my Hasselblad CFV digital back and it's now all crystal clear to me. Try it.

 

Rolo I unfortunately do NOT have the luxury of a Hasselblad back and cannot do the comparison. I see the point that M9, and then S2 has more pixels than the M8 but in real terms for a A2 / A3 size print limited by 300dpi is that an issue?

 

That said I certainly believe what you say....Can you please explain the difference in a printed A2/A3 image? I guess it is indeed relevant to take the 300dpi issue into account unless higher resoloution printing is a viable option in the real world today.

[Rolo]

Nothing new there. it has been so for many decades.

 

100% Jaap. Have to say though that, now and again one has to be reminded of the basic laws and how they impact the process. Certainly made me realise why I am so pleased I replaced the M8 and what I need to do with the M9 to get the performance I want from it.

 

[Must also note that, I have zero experience with the S2, although anticipate it would follow exactly the same principles of size and format. My test started as an evaluation of a newly purchased 50mm Summilux Asph and nothing to do with the S2].

[Marty]

(in response to the original points)

 

1. Possible with M8/M9? Probably. I recall last year's review of the S-E 3.8/18mm accompanied by similarly striking architectural photographs. I don't remember if there were any spread over 2 pages but they were very good and clean nonetheless. I don't think the shots demonstrate the S2 or lens at their limits but LFI is probably the wrong vehicle for that anyway. One obvious advantage of the S2 here is in the shot where the lines had been corrected - as mentioned in the annotation this sort of thing is clearly a no-brainer with that kind of resolution.
   
2. Versus P and H? I prefer to stay out of the MF wars, but these snowy images are at least a clever nod to the S2's weathersealing!
   

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wattsy]

I can only say that if I already notice smoother transitions in colour and contrast between the M8 and M9 with the relatively small size difference in sensor

 

The M9 sensor is virtually twice the size of the M8 sensor. Back in the M8 days I argued in this forum many times that Leica should move towards a full frame sensor in the M camera but the usual responses were that the M8 size was "perfect", "no benefit", "cannot be done", etc.

[jaapv]

True, Ian. Just being kind to M8 owners - and as I said, it shows. As I recall the usual answer was: "Leica would love to, but is not able to at the present time. In the meanwhile it does not matter too much right now."