How would S2 images in LFI compare to an M9?

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back to the question: Is there a visible difference?

 

We are still using the old Mk I Eyeball we have been using for the last ten million years or so. The wetware we use to make its information into images has probably not improved much either in this time. What has definitely improved (if this is the apposite word) is our ability to talk, especially nonsense.

 

So there are distinct limits to what we can discern in a picture. Modern reproduction and printing techniques, as used e.g. in the LFI, now approach the limits of what we can see. Further "improvements" in photographic or reproduction or printing technique are quite simply a waste. What use is the exquisite resolution etc., if we can't see it?

 

But oh yes, it is there -- in some theological sense -- angels dancing on the point of a pin and all that -- and we are told that we should be properly awed. And I do stand corrected: It is useful. For all that gloss and smoothness goes to hide the fact that all the MF pictures we see are lethally boring. I will gladly exchange all your MF stuff for one single Capa or HCB or Gene Smith that reaches out and TOUCHES me -- a picture that was taken because someone felt the drive, not because he was paid to do it.

 

Even if we put that fact aside as non pertinent (impertinent?), the original question, if anybody is still interested, could easily be answered by a spread in LFI: The same subject at the same moment shot side by side with a M9 and a S2, printed by the same process on the same paper, on the same press. But LFI will never do that, because Leica manufacture both cameras. Remains a considered opinion by someone who was deeply into medium format on film for more than half a century:

 

Medium format is obsolete.

 

The old man who came out of the wet darkroom

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

Absolutely right, Lars. I tried to say something similar, but much less eloquently earlier. For 99.99% of uses, I would agree with you.

 

This is of course, a bit of a shame for our favourite camera company who have bet a considerable amount of the company silver on something that bridges "35mm" and "MF".

 

Maybe they should have concentrated on a killer R10 after all...

[bill]

Lars, every so often, you post something that borders on eloquent perfection. Thank you. End of (pointless) debate, I feel.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Rolo]

Lars, every so often, you post something that borders on eloquent perfection. Thank you. End of (pointless) debate, I feel.

Regards, Bill

 

Quite incredible. When I read it, I thought it was completely off topic and generally demonstrated unnecessary bias and ignorance. Interesting how we see these things so differently.

 

from the young man from the Age of front and rear movements.

[bill]

Quite incredible. When I read it, I thought it was completely off topic and generally demonstrated unnecessary bias and ignorance. Interesting how we see these things so differently.

 

from the young man from the Age of front and rear movements.

 

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[andybarton]

I have just spent a happy hour in a hospital waiting room, trying not to get infected with anything I haven't already got, and I read LFI from cover to cover (possibly for the first time)

 

The detail shown, on the printed page, in the S2 shots of Hamburg and elsewhere is very impressive indeed, but it's impossible to tell how (on a scale of 1-100) different a shot taken with an alternative camera might be.

 

I think that what we are seeing here is similar to when a TV programme, recorded in HD, is shown on a non-HD TV channel (but on an HD capable TV set). The full HD quality (if that's what it is) isn't there, but it is possible to tell that the programme has been recorded on HD equipment. There is something intangible "extra".

 

I still think that Frank should buy an S2 and an M9 and go out and experiment on everyone's behalf.. After all, as has been said, LFI aren't going to do it, and Leica certainly aren't. They want to sell some S2s.

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think that what we are seeing here is similar to when a TV programme, recorded in HD, is shown on a non-HD TV channel (but on an HD capable TV set). The full HD quality (if that's what it is) isn't there, but it is possible to tell that the programme has been recorded on HD equipment. There is something intangible "extra".

 

As an interesting(?) aside, the TV series Babylon 5 was first broadcast back in the days of 4:3 tv; 16:9 and HDTV was in it's infancy. It was shot in high quality (and with surroundsound) in 16:9 and cropped on it's initial release.

 

This has worked fine, except that the direction tended to get the actors to clump together in recognition of the 4:3 constraint, so now on widescreen they look slightly odd, as if they are huddling together for warmth...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[bill]

I still think that Frank should buy an S2 and an M9 and go out and experiment on everyone's behalf..

 

Fair point, Andy. And of course until and unless Frank gets an S2 and an M9 he should not offer his opinions thereto...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[laglaph]

Is it me or is the resent set of images shot on the S2 in LFI technically great, but visually boring? Would you have one on your wall? In fact all of the S2 pictures I've seen so far have been technically stunning, but not one has left an image that sticks in my mind. That has everything to do with those who are using it I suppose, maybe the price makes it affordable only to those who only produce advertising and other commissioned work with a high monetary value. Love to see what it can do say in the hands of Joe Cornish.

[andybarton]

Oh dear, I really hope Joe Cornish doesn't ever get his hands on one.

 

I find his work totally dull. It's so formulaic.

 

I agree that we are yet to see any inspirational shots taken with an S2 and it's a shame that none of the S2 owners on the forum have chosen to share their results yet (to my knowledge)

[bill]

Love to see what it can do say in the hands of Joe Cornish.

 

Hi laglaph,

 

...which goes to show that our tastes differ - and why not? Personally I find Joe Cornish's work an ideal cure for insomnia. One man's meat, and all that.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Guest BigSplash]

Absolutely right, Lars. I tried to say something similar, but much less eloquently earlier. For 99.99% of uses, I would agree with you.

 

This is of course, a bit of a shame for our favourite camera company who have bet a considerable amount of the company silver on something that bridges "35mm" and "MF". Maybe they should have concentrated on a killer R10 after all...

 

 

This is the same conclusion I have come to but did not dare make the point as it could be deemed critical of Leica's business decision to develop the S2, and kill R10.

 

It seems that M9 users see an improvement of their images due to the larger sensor and higher consequent pixel count. That opens the obvious question as to what happens when Leica develop a M10 with a new sensor at some point....it is likely to have a larger pixel count IMHO and that will further presumably narrow the gap between S2 and Hasselblad etc in terms of image quality.

[andybarton]

Possibly. But by then there will be the S2.2, then the M11 and the S3... ad nauseam.

 

Once you step onto the digital camera merry-go-round, there's no getting off. With a film camera, you could improve your shots every time Ilford, or Kodak improved their film, or someone improved their developer. It was easy, and the hardware stayed the same throughout. An M3 will take just as good photographs as an M7, because they use exactly the same "sensor". If you want improvement in your digital world, then it's all or nothing.

 

This is one of the reasons why I am not prepared to jump onto a digital M any time soon.

[jaapv]

Is it me or is the resent set of images shot on the S2 in LFI technically great, but visually boring? Would you have one on your wall? In fact all of the S2 pictures I've seen so far have been technically stunning, but not one has left an image that sticks in my mind. That has everything to do with those who are using it I suppose, maybe the price makes it affordable only to those who only produce advertising and other commissioned work with a high monetary value. Love to see what it can do say in the hands of Joe Cornish.

Arent you confusing content (which has very little or nothing to do with the specific camera) with the tool itself?

[Guest farbtupfer]

.... and it's a shame that none of the S2 owners on the forum have chosen to share their results yet...

 

 

Well .. it seems that there are very few owners of a S2... and it is actually not very precise if the S2 is for realy professionals... or just noble amateurs...

[Guest farbtupfer]

Is it me or is the resent set of images shot on the S2 in LFI technically great, but visually boring?

 

So maybe ask theleicaguy...

 

The Leica Guy

[jaapv]

Oh dear, I really hope Joe Cornish doesn't ever get his hands on one.

 

I find his work totally dull. It's so formulaic.

 

I agree that we are yet to see any inspirational shots taken with an S2 and it's a shame that none of the S2 owners on the forum have chosen to share their results yet (to my knowledge)

I count six image threads in the S2 forum...

[SJP]

The S2 is a completely different animal than a M9 or hypothetical R10 (FF sensor).

 

For glossy advertising stuff customers AFAIK expect huge overkill in files size so that parts of the selected image can also meet the required standards. Crops of images and wall-to-wall size banners have to look good as well, not just prints in a glossy magazine. The M8 and M9 are considered good enough for that, but you will provide less leeway for the clients which might make them unhappy as the campaign develops.

 

If you are an amateur then the capabilities of the S2 are indeed overkill but the same applies to a Ferrari or a fast motorcycle. Nevertheless there will be amateurs buying this stuff - and why shouldn't they? Some amateurs are extremely good photographers, some not, but IMHO there is no need for anyone to justify a personal choice.

 

Leica decided to make the S2 so as to stand out from the digital DSLR crowd. It is not the ideal tool for the average "happy snapper" and is not intended as such. Who needs ~50Mb DNG files? Not me!

 

In conclusion S2 and M9 prints in a magazine will look roughly the same except for the connaiseur but this is completely beside the point.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lars_bergquist]

The S2 is a completely different animal than a M9 or hypothetical R10 (FF sensor).

Indeed.

For glossy advertising stuff customers AFAIK expect huge overkill in files size so that parts of the selected image can also meet the required standards.

All right ... there is a market. It is composed by art directors that are too dumb (in both senses of the word) to tell anybody, including themselves, what they want, and too incompetent to emerge from their offices to get the stuff themselves. So they want everything covered, preferably 180°, so they can cook up any harebrained layout ex post facto.

 

The publications they produce are much like leading articles in newspapers. These pieces are very solemn, but they are read only by other writers of leading articles for other papers, who then write other leading articles ... that's the political equivalent of the coffee-table market.

 

All good photography doesn't necessarily have to look like something by Sebastiao Salgado. But all good photography does something to reach out to the viewer. You know, Irving Penn did that even in his fashion photography. But most 'glossy' photography is stone dead even before the rag is recycled.

 

The old man who came out from the wet darkroom