Will the real audience for the S2 please stand-up...

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The criteria wasn't the H3D/39 (which is a fine camera) ... I'm now using a H4D/40 which cost me about $8K less than the S2 (body verses body), plus I got an extended warranty and a discount on another H/C lens, so the difference was more like $12K.

 

However, that wasn't the real measure. I did have the S2 money ready to go, and a burning Leica fever. Besides IQ, my test criteria was to find a MFD solution that would lessen or eliminate the need for a 35mm DSLR for the work I do.

 

I shot with the S2 & 70/180 lenses for a morning ... outside in really good light, and inside both available light and using the flash. Took about 170 shots and worked the S2 files a number of ways using different processing software ... including LR3 Beta. There is definitely a look to the images, and subjectively I wasn't in love with the look. Many of the images I've seen taken with this camera display that look also, so it wasn't just my processing. I also pulled 17" X 22" prints as part of that evaluation.

 

It would be difficult to fault the S2 images on an analytical level ... they just didn't have the character I had hoped for. A bit clinical in feel ... and for lack of a better term, flat looking. Images I've seen that do have some character, or aren't flat feeling, look over processed to my eye. So, I'm not yet convinced despite all the marketing claims. Just study the images out there and draw your own conclusions.

 

Of interest was that my pal Irakly Shandize also tried the S2 while shooting in Russia, and independently had the same take-away as I did. (he currently uses a Contax 645 and a Phase One back).

 

Operationally, the S2 a really nice camera ... but it lacked the diversity of applications I really need in a MFD system ... gaps that were filled by items like the TS/1.5 for the H4D, which is really small and portable. And when I tried the H4D with True Focus .... and found it really did work for off-center compositions ... it better fit my shooting needs. I understand that others may not need the same operational or functional system attributes ... so all this is purely personal application.

 

In the end, I'm sure the S2 will come into its own as it gets into more and more hands ... but I didn't see anything shot by me, or any one else yet, that makes me believe this camera system is any better than what already exists (other than the form factor, which is beautiful).

 

-Marc

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Pretty much my conclusions as well. I just don't find it any better than my P40+ system and images from the S2 still looks sterile in my eyes. Or as Marc describes no character to it. As i said many times without dedicated software built for this machine it is just a cookie cutter cam. Sure it is nice but the IQ from it does not get me excited. You also have to realize Marc and my comments come from very experienced shooters with many systems and MF as our main units not to mention we are some old dogs that go back pretty far with film and digital. Our perspective comes from being working Pro's and for a lot of hobbyists they just have the expectations that we have. Bottom line we both where expecting our doors to be blown off and that did not happen. This may mean very little to a lot of folks since they look at this in a completely different light than we do.

[mwilliamsphotography]

I think that is an important point. We all come to the party with a certain set of expectations. Those expectations are can be very personal and admittedly subjective. Experience is valuable, but it can also play the role of closing one's eyes based on bias from that experience. Which is why I worked with the files for so long before moving elsewhere.

 

It doesn't mean that getting an S2 is some wrong move or anything of the sort. In fact, I personally hate knocking any of this fine gear ... it's all really, really good ... and its pretty cool that Leica is now in the mix.

 

In the end there is no "best" which some folks hunger for ... just best for you and your photography. One man's "sterile" may be another man's "precise". I am aware of certain styles of photography that celebrates a cool, hard look at the world around us, and if that were my style I'd probably be in the "stand up" side of this S2 equation.

 

For me, I look to Leica for character ... the M delivers it, as did the R ... I just haven't seen that level of artistic character from this camera (yet) ... or better put, the character that is there is one I don't favor enough to plunk down that kind of cash in the hopes that I can manipulate something different from it. Without dedicated software that task would be even harder. It is what it is, and we each make the call whether it's a go or a no go.

 

-Marc

[kidigital]

Interesting comments, Marc.

 

Image quality is the final driver for me ... but it's so hard to put a finger on just what makes up what I most value in image quality. You can probably only do that first-hand (which anyone should do before buying into a MF system). I'll be taking an S2 test drive in several weeks, so I'm interested to see what the files look like. I felt very comfortable with the files I was getting from my P45+ back ... just not so much comfortable with the Phase camera and lenses I was using at the time (that was before the new DF camera and the latest Phase/Schneider lenses).

 

I'll hold off on my personal impressions of the lenses until I can see what the resulting images look like and I can see what I can do with them. But, it is interesting to note that Leica lens design has gravitated toward maxing out lens charts. That's great for perfectionist landscape shooters and many studio shooters, but I'm an all-around shooter looking for a look that mixes some boldness and subtlety with that precision. My standard in glass is the 80lux for the R and the 75lux for the M ... glass that helps my images stand out as being unique (having a soul) versus 'precise' that can be lumped together with thousands of other 'precise' shots. I realize that the results are a mixture of the software and the glass, but I'm interested to see first hand how the system is currently shaking out.

 

Kurt

[mwilliamsphotography]

I'd be very interested in your take once you get to shoot with the S2 Kurt.

 

What was a bit damning was that I also shot with the M9 and a few M lenses including a 75 lux at the same place at the same time as the S2.

 

Sometimes it comes down to one or two lens that becomes favorites for the feeling you are looking for.

 

Strange as it may seem, I feel the H4D/40 with lenses like the 28/4 and 100/2.2 have the look I had hoped to get with the S2. I recently did a portrait session outdoors using the H4D/40 with a 100/2.2 and a M9, 75/1.4 one after the other ... and except for the file size, it was difficult to tell the different files apart ... same sort of character and feel. That made me pretty happy.

 

-Marc

[glenerrolrd]

I think that is an important point. We all come to the party with a certain set of expectations. Those expectations are can be very personal and admittedly subjective. Experience is valuable, but it can also play the role of closing one's eyes based on bias from that experience. Which is why I worked with the files for so long before moving elsewhere.

 

It doesn't mean that getting an S2 is some wrong move or anything of the sort. In fact, I personally hate knocking any of this fine gear ... it's all really, really good ... and its pretty cool that Leica is now in the mix.

 

In the end there is no "best" which some folks hunger for ... just best for you and your photography. One man's "sterile" may be another man's "precise". I am aware of certain styles of photography that celebrates a cool, hard look at the world around us, and if that were my style I'd probably be in the "stand up" side of this S2 equation.

 

For me, I look to Leica for character ... the M delivers it, as did the R ... I just haven't seen that level of artistic character from this camera (yet) ... or better put, the character that is there is one I don't favor enough to plunk down that kind of cash in the hopes that I can manipulate something different from it. Without dedicated software that task would be even harder. It is what it is, and we each make the call whether it's a go or a no go.

 

-Marc

 

Marc

 

I completely agree with your assessment of the S2 character. I expected the color saturation and fine tone separation that I see in the DMR files . I never thought the M8 got there but the M9 is much closer . The S2 files didn t impress me for color or tone separation.

 

I expect the glass to look more clinical than the R glass. You can see the look changing with the new lens design team pushing for toward technical perfection. The new summiluxes and the new noctilux are all in this direction. But all are great lenses. From my viewpoint sharpness isn t an issue ..I found more detail in the files than I need . I agree that I can t find a single example of a file that has the color punch of a DMR or the lens character of a R80lux.

 

I have been holding out for the software because I think this is where the DMR got its real edge. If the color does t improve I will not go in this direction. I did get a look at some of David K s Sinar files ....they have the look IMHO.

 

But ....lets back to the thread s original premise....who is the real audience. Based on your description looks like you admit to being a "leica fan" . Same here. You have essentially zip professional support for an M9 ..yet you found a way to make it work . I want a camera system that works for me and how I like to shoot. The S2 is close.

 

I like almost everything about the S2 except (1) the "color" for lack of a better word and (2) the pricing(which should get fixed if Leica adjusts as the others have for the euro). An S2 is just over $15K Euro .

 

You can always wish....

[GMB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Roger, Marc, Guy,

 

As you know from the "othe" forum, I am currently looking into the options for a MF system. It would be very helpful if you could illustrate your points that the S2 files are too "clinical" or lack the color punch with a few examples.

 

As to who is the real audience: Difficult to say, but I think the S2 is particularly attractive to first comers to MFDBs, as they are not invested into any system and may appreciate more the form factor and the relative ease of use of the S2. Long term, the advantage of the S2 over the Phase or Hassy may be that it was designed from scratch as a new system rather than being a slow evolution of legacy film systems. However, much of this is in the eye of the beholder and different shooters will have different preferences.

 

Georg

 

PS: One last comment on some of the earlier posts in this thread: No wonder if the "real" audience for the S2 does not stand up. S2 buyers, whether professionals or serious or less serious amateurs, have better things to do than to post on a forum where the prevailing view seems to be that the S2 was only designed for and is only used by the rich trophy hunters. Fortunately, this thread took a turn for the better with the recent posts containing a serious and unemotional discussion of the pros and cons of the S2. Guy, Marc, Marc, and Kurt, thanks for that.

[KevinA]

The S would be a near ideal camera for what I shoot (mostly aerials), the handling and image quality would come into it's own. I shoot 35mm Canon at present, a couple of years ago I looked at the MF systems on offer, what I would of gained in image quality in some situations would of been at the expense of handling, versatility and quality in most situations I find I'm in. Long lenses were near impossible to use and the system as a whole too slow and clumsy. The S would answer much of the above, the trouble is it is not much of a system without lenses and more to the point I could not afford or justify it in the present climate. I also can look back to the point of when I looked at the MF systems and remind myself that if I had bought back then I would now be much poorer than I am now. The Leica or any MF system would not earn me a penny more than my Canons.

I truly wonder how many photographers shooting MF actually need what MF has to offer and wether it actually adds to the bank balance or subtracts from it. I don't think in the years I have been shooting digital there has been one job that has maxed out the quality of 35mm digital in final output. So who gains by the photographer spending a crippling amount on a better camera, certainly not me, your situation might be different. As much as I drool over a Leica S it has more justification as an expensive play thing than a money making tool to me and expensive play things are not on my list these days.

 

Kevin.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Georg , let me see if i can take on the character issue and relate it back to the M and R as a example. Let's look at some lenses that have a look or feel to them in the R and M that are NOT going to be seen in the S . For all intensive purposes the 70, 180 and bet my life the 35mm S lenses all come from the same glass and mold since they are all new designs they really don't have the chromatic aberrations that sometimes give the character of the lens. The S lenses are built for detail and sharpness which gives you the digital look and actually borders of over sharpened digital images which look very sterile. Now take the 80 R lux which is not a perfect design wide open or even a stop or so down it has chromatic aberrations or what one could call veiling, ghosting look. Noctilux as well as this, 28 cron M, 50 Pre lux in M , 35 lux in both M and R and several others but the look is a little softer wide open or stopped down slightly and has a nice tonal range of fall off for lack of a better word. The S lenses from my view do not have this tonal falloff between colors that lets say blend better in the above mentioned lenses. Leica decided to build as much detail as they could get in the S lenses which is fine because they wanted to compete against Hassy , Phase and Sinar in the market. Now Hassy, Phase and Sinar have these type of S look lenses as well which are very detailed , very corrected for aberrations but they also in each system have lenses that are more in tune to the older leica Lux lenses and with dedicated software spread out the tonal range. It's almost like DR as we spread out the range more for DR the tonal range over the image gets larger and appears to have a softer look compared to a file that has much less DR. All these little things along with software brings out the character in the final result.

 

The issue here is no one is going to make a 80 lux anymore because it is not a perfect lens. The look and character we all like from it is really aberrations with the lens design itself and let's face it also the certain type of glass formula that was around to make those lenses which may or may not be around anymore. As a company Leica has to go with glass formula that are available today. The Noctilux is a good example the older glass formula was and is to expensive to produce not to mention you can't find it anymore. So companies have to go with new glass formula's that can sustain the life of the lens and that will be newer formula's that are available today that may not have that character but a more near perfect formulas. So the S lenses are in a sense actually technically to good as well as my Phase 150D lens is actually technically to good.

 

When we OEM's are building the newer glass they are correcting more and more for near perfection which is great but it is the old designs that actually have the look or feel because the design and glass was somewhat flawed which in turn gave us the look. You never going to see that in a S lens. So when comments like character , look and feel come up with a system that does not have dedicated software to spread the range of the sensor like DR and tonal range than you will get more compressed color space and DR which in turn is more saturated and less DR which is more contrasty. To compensate here you need to soften the look through longer tonal range and longer DR range. It's like comparing a SRGB color space to a ProPhoto wide gamut color space.

 

Good example of seeing this is a I have a NEC wide gamut monitor which allows me to see the full range of DR and Color tone on my monitor than when I move the image over to a SRBG monitor my laptop screen you see all that getting compressed to fit that color space. i go from more pleasing wide range image to a more compressed less character image.

 

So to compensate for some of these lenses that are technical left without the character if you can spread the tonal range and DR out through raw processing software you can get some of that look back in the images. So to me the S lenses look to compressed in color and to over sharpened to start off with and less DR which gives you a nice clinical look but will not give you the wide soft overall veiling ghosting look from lenses of the past. All of this is related in the overall look but through software you can get some feeling back. This goes back to my dedicated raw processing argument.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

The S would be a near ideal camera for what I shoot (mostly aerials), the handling and image quality would come into it's own. I shoot 35mm Canon at present, a couple of years ago I looked at the MF systems on offer, what I would of gained in image quality in some situations would of been at the expense of handling, versatility and quality in most situations I find I'm in. Long lenses were near impossible to use and the system as a whole too slow and clumsy. The S would answer much of the above, the trouble is it is not much of a system without lenses and more to the point I could not afford or justify it in the present climate. I also can look back to the point of when I looked at the MF systems and remind myself that if I had bought back then I would now be much poorer than I am now. The Leica or any MF system would not earn me a penny more than my Canons.

I truly wonder how many photographers shooting MF actually need what MF has to offer and wether it actually adds to the bank balance or subtracts from it. I don't think in the years I have been shooting digital there has been one job that has maxed out the quality of 35mm digital in final output. So who gains by the photographer spending a crippling amount on a better camera, certainly not me, your situation might be different. As much as I drool over a Leica S it has more justification as an expensive play thing than a money making tool to me and expensive play things are not on my list these days.

 

Kevin.

 

 

Kevin part of the problem is like many many folks you are viewing this as just a resolution jump and not a overall IQ jump. Trust me I hear this everyday and nothing wrong with it but there is so much more to it than just resolution output. It's the look and feel of the MF files and also the pliability of the files to work with in processing that makes a huge difference. I could go on for quite sometime on this overall image quality over 35mm but I am sure you have heard most of it before. At some point even as a Pro trying to turn your output (money back into your input ( ROI) and just have to suck it up for the overall long term ride on not just what you gain from it financially but the output that you are delivering to clients. I hear this phrase daily and it actually makes me want to puke sometimes. Here goes "well it is good enough for a one page spread in the magazine why do I need more"

Man does that one get to me and sometimes you just want to reach out and strangle someone. I'm more reserved than that but it is not about just that immediate need but needs of that image maybe down the road and what it could become. BIGGER output and I have been burned by clients so bad on this one. You deliver a image to handle the request or even the initial job than for some reason they decide hell lets blow this up to the size of the wall. Now all of a sudden your 21mpx cam just got reduced to a 1mg Point and shoot cam and simply cannot handle that increase and than you have mud on your face.

 

Love to say never trust a client and it is true in this case but they are paying the bill as well. Bottom line you can never cover your butt enough out here. Also you need to put pen to paper and do the math on these systems out here and what you actually have already invested plus what you are willing to outlay for your business. It is honestly not as bad as one thinks given the life of the system. It is a tough question to answer because everyone has there own threshold for pain in there pocket

[mhoersch]

When I read Guy's posts and some others about the character of the S2 lenses I can't help but wonder if Leica will ever realize what a great opportunity they turned down when they abandoned the R10. All that marvellous R glass waiting to be put to excellent use with a 35mm FF sensor and DMR colors... Sigh.

[jaapv]

Guy, I usually don't get involved in S2 threads, as I will most likely never even use the system and photography will never pay my bills, but I read them with interest. However, this lens character thing. Is it not a fact that our appreciation of an image is largely controlled by the look our eyes are used to seeing? What we find pleasing now may well look quite dated and insufficient in a few years. See the film vs. digital debate ten years ago. The "clinical" look of digital was seen as a huge drawback, nowadays most -clients to you- people will prefer the digital image as it is cleaner. Excepting photographic gourmets of course. The same with lenses. We love the aberrations, flare, etc now, but is it not a matter of training our brain and eyes into the new look?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Good point and in many cases depending on subject we are after the sharpest most detailed look we can get , lets face it one main reason to get into MF is the extra detail and the prospect of going really big in the files and prints. So yes wonderful point made and I agree but a lot of time we still want the 80 lux image as well on certain subjects. The problem here is the S glass won't get there very easily because it is all new glass with no heritage like the M and R . Even the old V Hassy lenses and old Mamiya lenses we can bolt on our other systems for those types of looks. The S as it is today can't do that plus Leica will not make lenses like that anymore. Those old legacy R and M glass is just not available to this system. Nothing totally wrong with that and yes we need to maybe grow away from those aberrations with ghosting, veiling images but also many folks still shoot the DMR ( one of my favs) and the M for that look as well. Look at all those Nocti's out there. Let's face it they are really not being totally used for near darkness photography but more for there look.

 

The S2 has a real challenge as it is a one horse pony in look. So outside the glass we have to find ways to give the file some character or look that we want. Back to my raw processing argument. Leica just flat out needs there own package with software. It's a chant I have been saying all along. Yes we can cheat to some degree with plugin's and actions made no question and that is something we will have to do to get a 80 R look in there files.

 

I really like this system and the ergo's are very nice but it has no history to come from and many still want that older look.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Hi Roger, yeah, the DMR was a "spoiler" wasn't it? ... Despite all of its operational shortcomings, the IQ was stellar for a relatively small meg, crop frame camera ... some of which I attributed to the Imacon software (or C1 if you prefer), Many folks forget that Imacon was the partner in making the DMR. It would have been interesting if that relationship had continued even after Imacon had acquired Hasselblad. Now we know why that never could have happened.

 

As to the more recent M lenses like my 50/0.95 and 21/1.4 ASPH: the color and character is there albeit different from the older M lenses like the 75/1.4, and that is what I subjectively feel is missing in the over-all feel of the S images. Take any small section of an S2 image and it's hard to fault ... IMO, it is the whole image impression that is lacking to my eye.

 

Georg, just take your time and look all the available S2 images and see what you think. Not just ones in perfect Florida light where any MFD will shine (which is why I went indoors for a bunch of shots). Now, what I cannot determine is whether the over-all impression I'm getting is partly due to the style of the shooters themselves. It may be that the camera has initially attracted photographers that favor that look, and as of yet no one has pushed the files in another direction. I tried doing that but with little success, but maybe others more skilled than I can. Or, it maybe it is what it is ... like it or don't. At least it is a choice.

 

Kevin, yes, the form factor of the S2 is what initially led me to think I could dump most of my 35mm DSLR gear and center a majority of my shooting needs toward the S2. I do a range of work all the way from weddings to advertising and corporate assignments with very diverse end requirements.

 

In your case, especially with your speciality type work, I could see the appeal of the S2. Plus, a more clinical/precise look may well be exactly what would be perfect. A majority of my work is with people and that is the primary criteria I use when evaluating the end IQ of any system.

 

I use MFD because the diverse needs can range from a web posting, to an 8 foot wide trade show poster or corporate lobby display. I even use MFD for weddings because the field has been flooded with Canon 50D toting newbies that shoot 2000+ images for $500. So I've taken a different route, and make large eye popping prints for each of my clients ... or double truck spreads in 10" X 10" albums. Quality over Quantity is my only recourse in terms of deliverables. Obviously, the hope is being selected for my eye, not what camera I use, but big beautiful prints doesn't hurt. I wouldn't get MFD just for weddings, but since I already have it, why not?

 

A note on real world handling: Most folks moving from 35mm DSLRs think of MFD in old terms ... but that is history. The newer cameras from Phase and Hasselblad are nothing like an old form 6X6 or 645 camera. While not the speed of a modern 35mm DSLR, they are closing the gap. And in fact, the S2 is no faster than the current Phase or Hassey, just a bit more familiar for 35mm DSLR users. IMO, familiarity is a temporary criteria.

 

Personally, I wouldn't make that the criteria ... and in fact didn't. Because I am familiar with other MFD cameras I evaluated the S2 on an equal playing field ... as did Jack Flesher and Guy Mancusio with their review. So did my pal Irakly Shandize who also is familiar with MFD.

 

For my style of photography I found the H4D/40 more useful and functionally adept. It focuses faster in lower light based on using both in lower light ... and using True Focus I can QUICKLY do off-center compositions ... much faster than wheeling a 35mm DSLR focus point into position. I can compensate on-camera TTL fill flash without taking my eye from the viewfinder ... which is a big deal for event work. Need drives preference. People have different needs, and fortunately there are plenty of choices to fit those needs.

 

-Marc

[glenerrolrd]

Georg

 

In all fairness the OTP started this with a hypothesis that the real audience for the S2 was the serious amateur ....not the typical professional that might be using a Hasselblad or a Phase. Since the S2 is very expensive it is often compared to the Hasselblad and the Phase One products and there is certainly plenty of overlap. But often these comparisons go quickly to issues like legacy investments in lenses , service ,availability of rentals etc. All good valid expectations if you are a pro which I believe means that you make money after your costs. Not particularly important to me as a serious amateur.

 

Everything that I have read and every discussion that I have had with established professionals would lead me to believe that (1) they don t have the money to buy a full S2 system (2) they could not justify it on any financial basis that I know and (3) things are getting much worse fast. Even the last testimonial from a fashion photographer on the S2 website ..when asked the pro says "maybe " I could justify an S2 over my Canon 1dsIII.

 

Serious amateurs do look to established professionals for guidance and reinforcement of there buying decision . Sometimes this is real sometimes this is all hype. Within every group of buyers there will be some that buy based on status alone but I believe it would be a mistake to get side tracked this.

 

The world as a whole is getting richer and no where faster than asia. It stands to reason that number of serious amateurs is a growing market segment and the number of high end pros that could justify a S2 is declining. So how about some equal time for the serious amateurs that could buy the camera ? I think that was the premise of the thread.

 

Everything about the S2 aligns with my requirements. It has the feel and handling of a Leica SLR . It has a great viewfinder . Its weather sealed so I can use it on the beach,in snow and rain. It has a quiet and dampened mirror and shutter. It balances nicely in my hands . I really like the form . (no much different than my M9 s or the DMR). I want to make this work and I don t want a Blad or a Phase because they don t fit my shooting style or requirements.

 

The lenses I expect to be great . I am open for the debate on IQ its important to me. There really aren t any Leica lenses I haven t liked . The head of the department says these are the best lenses Leica has ever produced. Personally I don t believe when the dust settles that the lenses will be viewed as 2nd to any. I concede that "character " is important and that high contrast modern optics tend toward a overly sharp "clinical look". This can be very important if say you love the character of a Noctilux ...sorry these Leica lenses will look more like the 50/1.4asph . Lens availability and character is very important to me . I want to see more but in the end I believe they will be great. Call it blind faith that leica can produce great glass and they will.

 

The IQ issue IMHO should be focused on matching of the sensor and associated processor with the raw conversion software. This is where the lack of a proprietary software solution that pulls the absolute best out of a raw file makes a difference. The debate in this area has focused on can Leica and its user base fix this through profiles,presets or other user controlled parameters . We are pretty sure the answer is not completely but how close can we get . For me this is a major concern . Marc has indicated he tried and just couldn t get there with LR3. Not good news for someone that wants an S2.

 

So what do I look for in the files ? I think you can look at any MF file and immediately see that has a whole order of magnitude more detail. They all look sharper and all show greater dynamic range with more detail in the highlights and shadows. But I see big differences in image contrast, tone separation and color saturation. And I can see it immediately . The big open point in my mind is how much of this can be fixed with software tuning ?

 

Ok where to look. I was on the shoot with david farkes at south beach thats described on his blog. I saw the files from the S2 ,the DMR ,the Sinar and a Hassleblad all processed in LR2 with the std presets . On the DMR and the Sinar the sky would be a beautiful deep blue. The yellows would pop and the shading (tone separation on the players skin would create the depth ). This is without any work on curves, the midtones or saturation. The S2 files were incredibly sharp ...look at the grains of sand falling off the ball. But the color was flat and lacked depth . My immediate reaction was on no they aren t like the DMR files. This was a good example for me because I live in Florida in the winter and I know what the scene looks like . Clear blue sky sunny mid day.

 

The wildcard was the Hasselblad which in LR2 was flat and not as good as the S2. I saw the same results when another forum member tested the H4D/40 against the Sinar. This doesn t synch with Marc s experience and he certainly knows the Blad processing. So I chalk this up to software and processing skills.

 

Look at the S2 website . See any images with deep saturated color, with a lot of shading in the solid colors . Could be just style ? But I see very sharp flat images. This I am worried about..if the files looked like the DMR only with the greater sharpness and dynamic range of MF..I would be all over it.

 

Roger

[mwilliamsphotography]

Very interesting discussion here.

 

Roger, LR2 was the fist time that the Hassey RAW files could ever be directly processed outside of Phocus ... IMO, that version of Camera Raw was a shaky start. Prior to that you had to do a DNG conversion which was ... well ... not optimal at all compared to Phocus.

 

LR3.2 Beta is a bit more promising, but still has a ways to go to even come close to Hassey files processed in Phocus. Which once again returns to Guy's argument concerning highly tuned and flexible proprietary software for cameras this sophisticated and lenses this good ... from any maker.

 

There is one calibration profile for the Hassey in LR3 (four factory ones in Phocus and the ability to build any user version), so any LR adjustments have to be done with user presets and manual camera calibration which takes time and some experience to even get a reasonably decent result ... I wonder if the South Beach shoot had any Hassey camera calibrations done in LR2 that was being used? Plus Phocus has very detailed DAC corrections for every H/C lens (including the V optics).

 

IMO, when comparing MFD systems, the system should be complete ... Leaf or Phase files should be done in C1, Hassey in Phocus ... to be true to the spirit of comparisons. I know of no one that thinks LR is as good as C1 for Phase Files. I think the same for Hassey and Phocus. Processed BTW, by someone that knows what they are doing with the software.

 

IMO, LR is a good swift way to get through a lot of files (like for a wedding) where I may have Hassey, Leica M, Sony A900, and my second shooters Canon files all thrown into one file folder and sorted by time shot. I can segregate each camera for batching and apply user presets and calibrations for reasonably decent proofs ... but when I am making a big print for a client or using a Hassey file for an album, I revert back to Phocus which I have tuned just right for the way I shoot, and what I shoot. I NEVER use LR for any commercial assignment.

 

-Marc

[kidigital]

When you put aside all of the jokes and rants and raves, the real audience for the S2 has stood up. Individuals like Guy, Marc, Roger and I are Leica's target audience poster children for the S2. We've purchased ten of thousands of dollars of Leica gear over the years including DMRs, M8s, M9s and most lenses in those systems. We've spent those dollars not because we are fanboys blinded by fanaticism but because we honestly like what we have seen with Leica digital files (most notably the DMR) and have been able to use those files in a number of professional and serious amateur applications. If we were or would become enamored with the files that we see from the S2, all of us would probably find the means to acquire the system as quickly as possible. I believe that I know Guy, Marc and Roger well enough to make that statement.

 

With that said, the ball is back in Leica's court. I, for one, could rationalize that I'm 95% there. That extra 5%, however, will take a bit more fine tuning. It's very similar to that very expensive extra 5% of mojo you look for that convinces you to justify a Noctilux when you could more easily, rationally and economically utilize a 50lux.

 

No one disputes that the company has built an excellent camera and lenses with the S2. "The real audience that is standing up" is just waiting for images from that system that are going to convince us, surprise us, inspire us and wow us.

 

As a former brand manager, I have to say that this last page is exactly the kind of product/service feedback I would scout high and low to find ... valuable insight that would turn high-potential purchasers into actual purchasers willingly to spread their halo of satisfaction and feelings to others.

 

Work carefully to assuage this final image question Leica S2 product team and you could develop a very deep and loyal S2 customer base. Ignore it, and you'll be left working a lot harder to make the case for a very expensive niche product.

 

Kurt

[georg]

The sensor, the ADC - they all perform very similar on all MFDBs as well as the S2 - they're coming from a small group of suppliers. A S2 is just a H4D/40 from the sensor/processing point of view.

Maybe the LR3-profiles aren't adapted as well to the color characteristics of the S2, I'm not sure from the shots I've taken - but there are no crucial differences that could explain different IQ from the technical point of view.

Is Adobe working on a profile for the S2 - would it be too difficult for Leica to support them with that? I don't think the debayer-algorithms have to be adapted for every single camera - it must be the color profiles.

 

I think it has to be clear that DNG doesn't mean full independence of the converter, just put a S2-DNG into C1...

 

What always annoyed me with my M8 was the lack responsiveness (turning on, zooming, writing...) and high power-consumption - just like a MFDB which is based on the same DSPs.

The S2 feels different, it feels responsive and 1.5fps are 120MB/s which is quite fast and much faster than any MFDB (you want numbers: the H4D40 is 66% slower).

It's smaller, it's rugged and offers the very same high craftmanship/ material quality the Göteborg-made Hasselblads once offered. Well, the lenses are the most advanced designs for MF and have the very same look as the current M/R-lenses - a matter of taste, I personally wouldn't trade that clean look with aberrations/ softness of a Summilux 80mm - not when using a 20k$-37,5MP-cam.

 

I still don't understand why the best MF-system in the world had to be replaced with some Fuji-stuff (yes, I know, 60 people assemble some shutters and bodies in Sweden) and Phase had to buy into the Mamiya-system (the RB67 was the worst engineered camera I've ever handled besides a Kiev! The otherwise wonderful Mamiya 7-concept was ruined by plastic! The 645 was once the poor-mans Hasselblad) instead of the much more advanced Hy6!? What happened to the market that the worst, primitive (Hasselblad was clever enough to buy a MFDB-maker, but the H-system was never thaat great) systems survived? But that's a different topic...

 

I understand that some people want the flexibility of a modular back and the ability to use larger sensors - but many users don't - I don't think there's one ideal solution for all demanding pros willing/ capable to use 10-50k$-systems. I think it's great that Leica was willing to invest lots of money and adding "a new touch" the beyond-35mm-market and they seem to succeed economically as well.

 

Is it for the amateur-market or the pro? I don't know and I don't care - but they are still not even willing to share some decent DNGs/JPGs on their site...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Georg if you go back to my review I still have all the raws loaded up on my Mac site for you to download and give it a whirl. Phase files are up also. Our site is down at the moment but look at the review and the link is there for you to download. Best advice download process and get a feel for the files and whatever processing engine you want to try.

 

 

Kurt made a very good point if I wanted the S2 i can certainly find a way to buy it. I'm not worried about ROI after 35 years as a Pro I shoot what I want for me first at this point. Clients count but I take the long view if it is what I want I will buy it. Been down this Leica road many times with several DMR's and M8's. Frankly I still want a M9 for the times i don't want to shoot the MF. It's not the economy stopping me from buying it but a wife's health that is more of the concern, so i will wait out the M9

[wildlightphoto]

An an enthusiastic amateur, until an inheritance comes my way (which I'm not in a hurry for) I'm sitting down. If financial constraints are not an issue I'd look carefully at the available lenses and do a lot of testing before I stand up. I don't need a complete system, one long lens is all I'd need, as long as it's the right lens. The 350mm f/3.5 APO mockup shown at the S2's photokina intro would be a logical candidate. The testing I'd do isn't so much the camera & lenses - in the MF digital market, exceptional image quality is a given, the whole point of going to medium format - the testing would be myself and my subjects.

 

The DSLR form factor and weather sealing are big draws for me, and the user reports of the menu, ergonomic design and viewfinder quality don't hurt either. I'd have to see how I get along with the camera, if the S2+350 is something I'd be willing to carry on my typical photo outing, and how my subjects respond to the larger lens. The 350's angle of view is like a 280mm lens on a D3 or 1Ds, about the widest angle of view I can make use of. Getting close enough to the critters to make good use of this short a lens isn't easy, and often the animals are spooked by bigger equipment. I'd have to weigh the benefits of the bigger file against the drawbacks of the bigger equipment and make a personal decision.

 

A couple of observations:

 

• it seems that user expectations often play a big role in reactions to the S2 and its file quality

• it has become very clear that using only one RAW developer to "level the playing field" when testing and comparing equipment is faulty methodology.