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

[ken_tanaka]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's been interesting to read the thoughtful, informed comments in this thread. Here's my perspective, as a non-S2-owner, for anything it may be worth.

 

By all credible early accounts I've seen the S2 is an engineering and design triumph.

 

The S2 arrived on the scene at the same time I was making decisions regarding my own medium-format facilities, so I did give it some thought. Yes, it is costly but not more costly than some of the alternatives I was considering. In the end I chose the medium-format digital back (mfdb) route. The primary decision point for me was that of versatility. I was willing to make a once-and-for-all investment in high-res imaging technology. As such, I wanted that technology to be deployable with a variety of optical packages, not just a handheld reflex body. I already had an early mfdb and came to appreciate that versatility. (Ironically, with dslrs, the smart money invests in the best lenses under the assumption of their endurance through a long parade of mated bodies. Here, it was just the opposite for me.) So, like several other similar possibilities, the basic dslr design of the S2 ultimately disqualified it from my consideration.

 

I see the primary "audience" for the S2 to be a faction of the same audience for other Leica cameras. It's undeniable that Leica has thrived by nourishing a distinctive luxury image that holds greatest attraction for affluent avocational enthusiasts whose sense of true value can become mesmerized by red dots. (I write this as one of Leica's long-time M system customers, btw.) The S2 strikes a bold, new flourish on that same strategy. The S2 is now THE camera for Leica aficionados disappointed by the demise of the R system but who now may find themselves with an inventory of Canon or Nikon products that can be sacrificed to defray the steep cost of membership in Leica's new "R" club.

 

Certainly there will be full-time professional photographers who will at least take the S2 for a spin, perhaps even buying into the system. It seems to have very strong imaging chops. But successful commercial photographers are also good small businesspeople, or at least have such acumen close at-hand. As such, the S2 faces some headwinds when viewed from this direction. Like Guy, and others here, these photographers have already invested experience and capital into other systems that are generally doing just fine. This is hardly a good time to be fanciful with any extra cash. The fact that the S2 is hard, or nearly impossible, to find in rental shops doesn't help, either. And ultimately any rational investment consideration in such a new Leica system has to face Leica's historical propensity for simply abandoning languishing larger camera product lines. Leica has a very real litter trail of these things and has never enjoyed long-term success with anything but its M rangefinders. That's a very stark fact that will give many even-minded pros cause to pause and, at best, take a wait-and-see posture for a year or two.

 

Meanwhile, of course, early adopters will enjoy snap-shooting with this new S2, as we already see early evidence here. It looks like a fine camera with much to recommend it for enthusiasts who've become bored by their dslrs.

[Advertisement]

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

[georg]

@Guy Mancuso

I'm well aware of your effort to show some RAW-samples and as I said: I've already taken some images with it myself. I'm not sure if I saw any significant difference in IQ in comparison to a 39/40MP-back + technical lenses - sharp, high DR, wide tonal range and lack of almost any aberration/artifacts besides moire.

But I don't shoot portraits, so especially color/skin reproduction isn't important to me and I can't tell anything about it.

 

What I've actually found are many horrible samples on the net: in-camera JPGs (I still don't get the point of this "S2-feature", they're unuable and LR3 converts several images in seconds witout any adjustments in a much higher quality), defocused or shallow DoF "sharpness-samples", handheld 1/90s shots... I think a few professional-taken samples on the S2 would be a good thing.

 

And I appreciate your calm despite my "Mamiya-bashing" ;-) - I know you love yours but I have hoped for an updated 200 series (new Zeiss designs, AF, rotating digital backs...) so badly and the survival of 500 highly-trained jobs (they dominated the world market for 50 years, they made good profits for the owner) in Sweden instead of this silly Fuji and Mamiya with another "me too"-645-system. I prefer the über-engineered approach of the S2.

[KevinA]

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

 

Guy,

If it works for you then that is all the reason you need.

I don't dispute the increase in quality above just resolution either. I know the argument for starting with more means you have more at the end when losses occur. My losses are mostly nothing to do with file quality supplied, that happens when it gets printed on the press. I could spend £40k on better gear and the end result would be the same.

I can see there are a few that deal with a market where it matters, I just don't think as many photographers are in that market as they think they are. If it's weddings and portraits then it's complete overkill as is most general photography. If it's the format size that gives you the look you are after and not the pixels, then a P25+ would do the trick for a quarter of the price. My clients would not pay me a bean more for shooting on £40k's worth of gear even if the images were ten times better.

Unless the quality is maintained right down the line with retouching, cmyk conversion, printing etc the gain I suspect is imperceptible.

On the Large Format site I stated LF had a look that shouted LF, many produced a range of images and asked me to say what they had been shot on, I got zero correct. These were images produced by LF lovers, i could not tell the difference between LF and 35mm digital, it was the way the photographer worked that gave it the look, a LF working attitude produced the same look on 35 digi as shooting LF.

The S I believe is a wonderful machine I wish it and it's users great success, what I can't see it as is a part of a business plan to make more money, which it needs to be in a professional environment. Better than a Canon? it certainly should be on all levels of image quality, better than a Cankon to make money with? I'm not convinced.

 

Kevin.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Very valued points too and should be taken with all that in mind. Obviously in the whole process something is not always just flat out perfect going to press and you are correct there. The one thing is to be able to sell this tech to your clients and the given quality from it. Some clients are very hip to this and know they are getting better than Joe Smith down the road. This does not always work either but it is a selling point in the corporate world. Obviously we are not talking talent, lighting and such here just the tech side of the house. This is something that we have to sell to clients as well as the artist side too. In some cases makes no difference as you mentioned but in some area's depending on fields you work with some clients love the fact you went out spent a load of money just to make them important enough in your work to do so. I know kind of makes no sense but it does sell like that . Some clients take that to heart , i know hard to find and all that but if you can sell the technology to clients than you will reap the rewards with more work. In the corporate world a company may have 3 shooters on tap. If your the guy with the big gun it does play to your advantage as clients want the ability to go large. This is something one needs to figure out if clients are willing to pay a little extra for a great shooter with a big gun. I'm a little more money than the other 2 shooters but i get the bulk of the load. Obviously that has to do with talent and experience but having these abilities does help on the sales end as well.

 

The other equation is it covers my butt as well also and I obviously love the files from MF over 35mm any day of the week even though on the other hand some clients never will know any better. It's quicksand and need to know how to tip toe in and out of it to make it profitable for you. But you will often hear me say I shoot with a 40 mpx back to clients and jaws drop. I know I know but impression is actually profitable as well. Just like sex sells so does technology but you need to present it correctly as well.

 

BTW the P25 Plus I did own and it is a smoking back. Love that 9 micron sensor back but it does have a good amount of moire. Have to be careful with it and what you shoot, not the ideal people back.

[SJP]

<snip>But you will often hear me say I shoot with a 40 mpx back to clients and jaws drop. <snip>

I have no idea how many mpx the S2 is but I guess less than 40mpx. Would the S2 be a Hassy, P1 etc killer if it had a 75 or even better 100 mpx sensor and/or does physical size of the sensor matter as well? Maybe you should state more mpix than the camera actually has (this is called marketing).

 

I have no interest either way, yet I am intrigued as I had hoped that #mpx argument was dead and buried some time ago. Another "issue" is lens quality - if you manage to make a lens camera combo which is as close to perfect as possible, then suddenly you get critcism as the images are "sterile", "without character" (i.e. no vignetting and CA etc.)

 

I would guess that most S2 user are so phased by the technical image quality that they have forgotten that it "takes more to tango" to make a great picture. This will come in due course. How about adding CA and other artefacts in PP, that should be really easy.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Obviously your taking my comment out of context as well. I'm not shoving 40 mpx comments up clients asses as you may slightly suggest. I am also not going to say something is more than it is not but obviously this is being said about the S2 on ever corner of this forum. BTW the S2 does have CA and other issues as well and it is not close to perfection as some would think. Need to read more carefully how this is all presented more of the issue is glass formula's from the old have died off as well which has a lot to do with character. Lead and fluorite and other minerals are not being allowed to be put in lenses as they once did. Some of these minerals are not plentiful enough anymore to sustain the life of a given lens being made as mentioned already the glass formula for the Nocti has changed and so has the process to make reason there is a new Nocti around. As you see there are new Lux glass being introduced as well. These are old mandler designs that called for different minerals in the glass. Technology has moved on and with that minerals and materials have evolved in different directions this has a effect on the industry as a whole.

 

If you think for one second the MPX race is dead and buried than you have buried your head in the sand as well since every OEM still uses that marketing to sell millions worth of gear. What is the First naming convention after any cam out there Nikon D3x 24 mpx etc etc etc

 

Here great example first line

 

Nikon

D3x SLR Digital Camera (Camera Body)

 

24.5 Megapixel Resolution

FX-format (full frame)

CMOS SensorNikon

EXPEED Image ProcessorNEF

(RAW) Files at 12- or 14-bit Color3"

Super-density LCD Monitor

Live View Shooting Modes

5 fps Continuous at Full Resolution

Scene Recognition System

Virtual Horizon Indicator

Dual CF Card Slots

 

nikon d3x

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I never said "more mpx" was dead and buried only that I hoped it had been - which is my personal choice and not that of the general public.

 

I agree that "abberations" can add character to a lens, I really like my old summaron 35/2.8 and will enjoy using it it for the forseeable 30 years or so - but adding abberations in PP is easier than removing abberations in PP (e.g. sharpness/softness, blurring is easy compared to restoring what is not there in the first place)

[Guest guy_mancuso]

MPX still count but I agree it is a way overdone marketing routine. Just getting in the MF size matters and even the P25+ at 22mpx is killer good. We can all hope this marketing does not mean much but I'm afraid people buy size.

 

As a good friend told me on my last workshop that sell high fidelity custom gear for folks homes was he never had a client return a TV that was too big in size. Too small yes but never too big. I find that a interesting analogy

[stunsworth]

If you think for one second the MPX race is dead and buried than you have buried your head in the sand as well since every OEM still uses that marketing to sell millions worth of gear. What is the First naming convention after any cam out there Nikon D3x 24 mpx etc etc etc

 

What would you say were the average size of final output that clients use?

 

I can understand it impresses the hell out of them if you zoom in on a model's eyes and they can see a lot of detail in the irises or eye lashes, but how many times is that amount of detail visible in the final output at normal viewing distances?

[SJP]

MPX still count but I agree it is a way overdone marketing routine. Just getting in the MF size matters and even the P25+ at 22mpx is killer good. We can all hope this marketing does not mean much but I'm afraid people buy size.

 

As a good friend told me on my last workshop that sell high fidelity custom gear for folks homes was he never had a client return a TV that was too big in size. Too small yes but never too big. I find that a interesting analogy

 

+ 1 and the stupid thing is that you lose dynamic range & high ISO if you have more pixels - give me more DR anytime (well nearly).

 

re. ISO I refer to my comment given before

 

I like the TV story:D

[glenerrolrd]

There is a problem in choosing the right raw convertor for a fair evaluation. I call this one

 

THREE FAN BOYS IN A BOAT....

 

Lets say Marc,Guy and David (no resemblance to any real person) were to shoot the exact same scenes with the HB,PhaseOne and S2 using approximately 40MP versions . Then each developed the images to a commercial grade using their choice of the best available software and presented them to a client . What would we see ?

 

This is sort of the proprietary tester . I couldn t do this test myself because I don t know the HB and Phase software.. Don t we need the converted versions done by the masters .

 

I would bet that each converted file would be pretty amazing .....but we haven t seen it yet .

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I know we slid off the topic line here a little but what I believe most folks here are saying is keep all this in perspective as you go out and do your homework to purchase gear. The S2 and all other MF gear is not something to take lightly on your bank account and just make sure you are not disillusioned as you read the forums, reviews , marketing campaigns and stuff like this. Know your needs and your style of shooting and sit down and do a Pro and con worksheet on every system out there. Don't buy stuff with comments that say the best there is . There is no best there is, that is all BS. The best there is is what works for you and how you shoot. Also the more you spend does not guarantee better results either. People buy expensive items for all different reasons that may not mean a darn thing to any one of us, don't get caught in that trap of buying labels. For me if the s2 had dedicated software and all the glass out now than i would consider it along with my whole checklist of stuff that I find important to me but not everyone has my checklist either so buy what is on yours that makes the most sense to you is how I look at all this. I just like to share my perspective and give as best advice and knowledge as I have. End of day if what I say or Marc and others say and you use that info to make informed decisions that it is all good to read and understand.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

There is a problem in choosing the right raw convertor for a fair evaluation. I call this one

 

THREE FAN BOYS IN A BOAT....

 

Lets say Marc,Guy and David (no resemblance to any real person) were to shoot the exact same scenes with the HB,PhaseOne and S2 using approximately 40MP versions . Then each developed the images to a commercial grade using their choice of the best available software and presented them to a client . What would we see ?

 

This is sort of the proprietary tester . I couldn t do this test myself because I don t know the HB and Phase software.. Don t we need the converted versions done by the masters .

 

I would bet that each converted file would be pretty amazing .....but we haven t seen it yet .

 

 

Ah I would kick all there asses. LOL

 

Just kidding

[glenerrolrd]

Ah I would kick all there asses. LOL

 

Just kidding

 

Always one to rock the boat. LOL

[Guest guy_mancuso]

What would you say were the average size of final output that clients use?

 

I can understand it impresses the hell out of them if you zoom in on a model's eyes and they can see a lot of detail in the irises or eye lashes, but how many times is that amount of detail visible in the final output at normal viewing distances?

 

I think the optimum MPX size cam given output today is most likely the M9 size at 18mpx going to press. For print it depends on size . If someone is routinely doing 30x 40 prints than 40mpx is just about perfect for it. With a 60 mpx back given the same 30x 40 size you will see some gain but it is smaller than some think. I go against a 60mpx back all the time with Jacks P65+ back and yes his has a edge but you need to look for it also. 18mpx IMHO is the start of great quality for like a double page spread.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Always one to rock the boat. LOL

 

I'm not a fanboy though of any system out there . They all have there quirks and compromises . I will freely admit though I love C1 as my Raw processor and i do like the Phase backs a lot. I would be happier with a nicer body even though the DF is nice, certainly room for improvement no question and the same can be said for Hassy , Leaf , Leica and Sinar as well. Hard to do but being a fanboy is actually a bad thing to do it clouds judgement and perspective. Being happy with your system is great but always be willing to sell it for better . I would turn anything on a dime if I saw greener pastures for myself.

[GMB]

I know we slid off the topic line here a little but what I believe most folks here are saying is keep all this in perspective as you go out and do your homework to purchase gear. The S2 and all other MF gear is not something to take lightly on your bank account and just make sure you are not disillusioned as you read the forums, reviews , marketing campaigns and stuff like this. Know your needs and your style of shooting and sit down and do a Pro and con worksheet on every system out there. Don't buy stuff with comments that say the best there is . There is no best there is, that is all BS. The best there is is what works for you and how you shoot. Also the more you spend does not guarantee better results either. People buy expensive items for all different reasons that may not mean a darn thing to any one of us, don't get caught in that trap of buying labels. For me if the s2 had dedicated software and all the glass out now than i would consider it along with my whole checklist of stuff that I find important to me but not everyone has my checklist either so buy what is on yours that makes the most sense to you is how I look at all this. I just like to share my perspective and give as best advice and knowledge as I have. End of day if what I say or Marc and others say and you use that info to make informed decisions that it is all good to read and understand.

 

Guy, this sums it up quite nicely and many thanks to you and the others for the time you spend to provide so much helpful advice and insight. This has turned into a very helpful and interesting thread.

 

The problem for a MF newbie, who, like mysel, is not a pro but instead another job that demands a lot of commitment, is several fold. First, time. I simply do not have the time to do day-long comparisons. Second, finding someone who can show you the difference. If I where living anywhere near to where you guys do your workshop, I'd be there in a heartbeat to see the differences first hand. Admitted, the cost of a flight across the Ocean is peanuts compared to the costs of the system but that brings us back to time. While I could find dealers who can show you may be the Hassy and the S2, none of them has all 3 main contenders.Third, time again. I can reflect on the differences for many more months but than will miss out on shooting. Fourth, if you never shot these systems, you don't know what you are looking for and in what direction your style will go, which in itself is part of the fun. Frankly, I only started to get serious about photography some 5 years ago at age 45, and I experimenting and developing. I enjoy that a lot. At one moment I will take the plunge. I know that it will be an informed plunge, that whichever system I get will be great, but that there also is the risk that in a couple of years I conclude that I did not make the right choice. So be it. (I also know that I wil try to attend a workshop for the raw processor).

 

I looked again at several S2 shots that I could find on the web. Some images indeed seem to have a somewhat clinical look--but not necessarily more than what you see from other MFD cameras. As regards colors, I think one would need the different systems side-by-side for the same shoot and, as mentioned in a previous post, have the raws processed by someone who knows the software and is in for the same look.

 

Georg

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Also need to remember we are very critical on these matters and this may not mean much to a lot of users so certainly don't want to discourage anyone either on any of these systems. They all will produce outstanding images when used to there best advantage. I think it is fair to point out all that is involved and take all that data and process out what is and what is not important as well. I love MF shooting and some folks may hate it. So always try your best to get your hands on it even just for feel at this point. Take your time and don't let any salesman talk you into something that may not fit your needs. Bottom line they are in it for there gain as well so listen , digest and than make your own decide on based on facts and not those this is the best there is comments if you know what I mean. Most MF dealers are pretty well versed just need to find a good one in your area

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[c6gowin]

I honestly believe the real (intended) audience for the S2 does not normally follow or post on forums such as this. As such, this discussion is heavily biased toward the opinions of those who are not the real audience of the S2.

 

I have stayed out of this thread up till now. I am an early adopter of the S2. However, I don't believe I am the real audience for the Leica S2. I consider myself a bonus buyer of the S2 - not one Leica expected in their business case for the S2, but a customer none-the-less. I am a very happy S2 owner.

 

I am an average to below average income person who has a passion for photography and doesn't rely on photography to pay the bills. For me and those in my income bracket (read not wealthy), I consider buying an S2 much like buying a boat - they are similar costs and both are a hobby. My buddies tease me about having such expensive camera gear, but they usually shut up when I remind them that my camera gear cost less than or equal to their boat and I use my camera way more frequently than they use their boat.

 

It should be noted that I spent a lot of time (over 1 year) and money researching the various dMF offerings in terms of traveling to various places to demo the different dMF offerings (no dealers close to me). So, I didn't buy the S2 blindly. Admittedly, I did have an advantage in choosing the S2 because I was new to the dMF and didn't have a bunch of money tied up another dMF system. My decision to choose the S2 was made with an open mind and not biased.

 

Just in case I didn't make it clear before - I am a very happy S2 owner. Oh, I must add, in my effort to evaluate the different dMF offerings I did not see the S2 giving up anything to those systems which had dedicated raw processing software. Please note, I am not saying LR is not optimized for the S2. I am saying that the S2 (with LR available today) compares favorably to other dMF systems with proprietary raw software.

[mwilliamsphotography]

What would you say were the average size of final output that clients use?

 

I can understand it impresses the hell out of them if you zoom in on a model's eyes and they can see a lot of detail in the irises or eye lashes, but how many times is that amount of detail visible in the final output at normal viewing distances?

 

Please allow me to swap hats here and answer your question based on a different area of experience:

 

My career hasn't been as a professional photographer until recently. It was as an advertising Art Director and eventually an Executive Creative Director of one of the biggest ad agencies in the world (at the time, the biggest). 40 years worth of experience. I conspired with many photographers, designers and cinematographers to produce national and international ad campaigns. Some of the work has appeared in Graphis International, won Clios and Addys, and many best of show honors.

 

As an Art/Creative Director I had the good fortune to have work done by folks such as Joel Meyerowitz, Annie Leibovitz and recently deceased Derek Vanlint (Cinematographer on the movie "Alien and partially on X-Men) ... to name just a few. Literally hundreds of very talented and dedicated image makers, some famous, some not.

 

The point here isn't to name drop, but to share a common thread that ran through ALL of them that I observed ... an adherence to the same principles that Guy touts ... it isn't what the client wants or expects, it's what you expect from yourself. The push to be the best possible in all areas ... which, unlike commonly thought, includes the best gear to express their ideas and drive for aesthetic bliss. Some of these people could go on for hours about the subtile differences in still and cine lenses that would be lost on the very clients that were paying the bill.

 

The CEO of Young & Rubicam once countered my grousing about how a client was trying to direct a photo shoot with ... "Remember, you would not hire that client as a Jr. Art Director, let alone let him direct anything."

 

So, impressing a client by zooming in on an eyelash may be fun, but it isn't the point of striving for professional excellence ... however you personally define that.

 

Plus, in many cases the actual use of an image can surprise the heck out of you (also mentioned by Guy). As an Art Director I KNEW what could happen to any given image regarding varying page formats, bleed requirements from digest to spreads in glossy tabloid sized publications ... or multiple usage from the internet to 8' wide trade show displays that are viewed from 3' away and feature product details that an engineer might inspect like a pixel peeper. These are not rare instances, they are everyday ones for many working pros.

 

I was once Art Directing a food shoot for Unilever where the photographer was using a view camera with a 39 meg Phase One back, and the publication requirements where spreads with bleed that was all over the map. The Digital Tech finally announced that we were in danger of running out of resolution if we pulled the camera back any further!

 

Yes, there are many applications where a 35mm DSLR would suffice ... and there are many where it wouldn't. Of the last 100 or so commercial shoots I supervised before retiring last year, only one of them was with a Canon 1DsMKIII and 300/2.8 IS ... and that was because it was a sports theme with active kids. Most were done with MFD systems, often the digital back on a view camera.

 

These are some the considerations many professional photographers mull over when selecting gear.

 

-Marc