S2 versus H4D40 test

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The linked article is sloppy science from start to finish. The guy thinks being in roughly the same place at very different times with different light and different equipment and different RAW processors demonstrates anything (other than that he was there at different times with different equipment).

 

It is quite possible the Hassy is miles better then the S2 (or Ektar 100 or a 5x7 view camera or vice versa) - but I'll never know one way or the other from this hash. Controlling the variables is what a freshman learns about on Day 1 of Experimental Methodology 101.

 

Guy and Jack did it right. Now they just have to do it again with the new versions of Phocus and LR.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I know Doug but I don't want to discredit him at all. He seems like a fine gent that truly went through the process of buying it and giving it his best shot. Some may think otherwise but like to keep the personal stuff off these boards. End of day I know these cams all in the 40mpx will produce pretty much the same things. I will never say the Phase or Hassy is superior over anything else and on the same hand I will never say the S2 is either because it is not. I just read a review who i will leave the name out as the author of it but it was the biggest bunch of BS i have ever seen, actually let me rephrase that i could barely read it . I see absolutely zero comparisons in print or files to what he was comparing against. It's the biggest joke I ever seen and NO ONE questioned it. Scary

 

Oh well I will go back to my hole and get to some work done. Be good folks

[Guest guy_mancuso]

The linked article is sloppy science from start to finish. The guy thinks being in roughly the same place at very different times with different light and different equipment and different RAW processors demonstrates anything (other than that he was there at different times with different equipment).

 

It is quite possible the Hassy is miles better then the S2 (or Ektar 100 or a 5x7 view camera or vice versa) - but I'll never know one way or the other from this hash. Controlling the variables is what a freshman learns about on Day 1 of Experimental Methodology 101.

 

Guy and Jack did it right. Now they just have to do it again with the new versions of Phocus and LR.

 

Thanks Andy I agree it should be done again but even with the raws still there folks can process in the new programs and see if things have gotten better for the S2. I have really been pushing the buttons hard on Leica to get a dedicated software going. I really hope they are listening. For this amount of money and the market they are after they really need dedicated software. I think there is some stuff being left on the raw processing floor as it is today with Adobe. Honestly i don't know how good Phocus is with the files. I think folks with the S2 may want to look at raw developer as there primary. Brian does a great job with that program and comparing it against LR maybe a smart move or at least trying it out. Just watch the sharpness on this cam , if you go to far it gets really obvious.

 

BTW here is the link to those files http://public.me.com/guymancuso M9 files in there also

[glenerrolrd]

Guy

 

I am sorry but I m lost someplace in your argument ?

 

The OTP takes two separate (but related) test reports and draws conclusions that in fact the Blad might have slightly higher IQ than the S2. Since it is well known that he tried the S2 and later went with the Blad and has extensively "slammed" the S2 on this and several other forums . I read his post as just another "lets argue " about the S2 IQ.

 

IMHO the tests were poorly done and then subsequently taken out of context by the OTP.

 

So lets start there.....the tests aren t particularly useful and the OTP used them to support his already "vested" POV.

 

How exactly should I or anyone else be opened minded about his posts? I read the article as best I could and really couldn t conclude anything .

 

I don t see where this in anyway reflects on your tests or your opinions? I didn t see any comments that were directed at your contributions and I hope you don t feel slighted in anyway.

[markowich]

Who cares...we already know Peter s conclusions ? Every discussion of the S2 has to degenerate into its not as good as a Blad or a Phase. How many posts by Peter are needed to confirm the exact same POV?

 

We get it Peter ..you prefer the Blad over the S2 because it has superior image quality? You tried the S2 and then went with a Blad . But you are independent and not biased in your POV ? Remind me to never bring up politics .

 

This wasn t a test of the blad against the S2 ..it was two separate tests taken at different times.

 

it was just some test that i found and thought useful to share. if you read my OP then you will realise that it was phrased very carefully. i generally read tests without emotions and have no gear preference whatsover. why should i, after all i am in the lucky situation that i can buy what i want.

and please do not forget that i have an M9 and 6 leica lenses, so i have invested significantly into leica and am certainly not biased against leica. actually, i now use the M system for 90% of my photography, see the recent galleries in

 

markowich's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

 

and i'd be very happy if the S2 was the super-superior MF system as some had expected, i'd (re)buy it in a moment's time.

as far as this test is concerned, it only tells me (even under the flawed test conditions) that the leica glass does not consistently compensate the lack of dedicated software.

maybe LR3 will be a game changer, i certainly hope so.

peter

[arminw]

I found this review a rather interesting read, and being German I had no problems understanding the content. I use leica M's for most of my casual shooting and some work related ( mostly travel, products and interior ) for all the rest I use my hasselblad H4D50. With the announcement of the S2 I was indeed considering to perhaps switch over, but after doing some research and seeing some test results + workflow. I realized very quickly that this camera is not ready for the Pro market . The IQ surely is superb and certainly close to the rest of the medium format players, but support , lense availability , tethering and finally RAW processing is just not there . Again Leica was under pressure announcing with hype a camera one year before it was actually available and then missed totally the market . Some pros use it for sure but some of the rental shops I know don't go near it! WHY?

The S2 is a great concept and maybe with the S3 or S2markII a product to consider, but until then Hasselblad gets my vote.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guy

 

I am sorry but I m lost someplace in your argument ?

 

The OTP takes two separate (but related) test reports and draws conclusions that in fact the Blad might have slightly higher IQ than the S2. Since it is well known that he tried the S2 and later went with the Blad and has extensively "slammed" the S2 on this and several other forums . I read his post as just another "lets argue " about the S2 IQ.

 

IMHO the tests were poorly done and then subsequently taken out of context by the OTP.

 

So lets start there.....the tests aren t particularly useful and the OTP used them to support his already "vested" POV.

 

How exactly should I or anyone else be opened minded about his posts? I read the article as best I could and really couldn t conclude anything .

 

I don t see where this in anyway reflects on your tests or your opinions? I didn t see any comments that were directed at your contributions and I hope you don t feel slighted in anyway.

 

 

Not sure i would even go as far as reading it as a comparison which clearly it is not. I think that was more my point. Something to look at and toss away really since it really proves nothing on that level. I can't read what he wrote but just looking it did not look good right from the gate. More my point is most folks should just have ignored it anyway. Much better test and reviews out there that give you a better guide to judge what these things can do. The tests that we did give you the reader to take the files and make judgements and also images are taken at time when things are shot back to back with same subject same lighting and even same aperture both handheld , tripod and in different situations. Plus you get the raws to process in various software. Frankly anything less than not getting the raws is totally subject to controversy . What Jack and I did was exactly what should be done and not one person said we did something wrong or should have done this or that. Not bragging but when people do not respond in those comments that we did something wrong than it is a clear sign how these test should be done that give the viewer a HONEST non bias look at it. We are Phase shooters but you notice there is no real bias in it. Even if we did have bias and said it you folks have the raws to prove us wrong. That is the key. Get real data and than make judgements.

 

Just for the record I have been after a H40 to do the same. Hassy simple has not come to the plate with one. The Hassy and S2 would be a even better comparison since they are basically using the same Kodak sensor. What bugs me is some of these tests are not giving out the real facts and folks take them to heart. Actually it really bugs me that folks are not getting the balance needed to make a judgement with there wallet correctly. I hate to see people make mistakes on bad data. I'm a data slut and admit it. I always want to know what pile of junk or treasure i am jumping into.

 

And no never felt slighted in anyway at all , thanks for asking. I think we did a good job of it and what I would like folks to do is look for more reviews and tests like that which are fair, balanced and gives you the raws to work with in whatever programs you like. Be it from us or anyone this is what I believe tests with real value should bring to the table. And yes there are some great review folks out there doing good things , look for them ignore the BS stuff.

[glenerrolrd]

The S2 is a great concept and maybe with the S3 or S2markII a product to consider, but until then Hasselblad gets my vote.

 

So what did you learn in the test? Did it give you any insights into HB verse S2 image quality? If all the other buyer factors were equal would the differences in IQ (as presented in the test) be a important consideration for you?

 

As you explain in your buying rationale.....had the test shown that the S2 was clearly superior to the HB ...the "right decision" for you was the HB . Both systems produce world class IQ to such an extent that most test have difficulty in showing a clear difference. Add in the variable of post processing software and the skills of the person doing the conversion and you get a variable with greater significance than the cameras .

 

When someone ..with a clear well documented agenda of bashing the S2... takes a poorly executed test out of context and posts it on the S2 forum ...you might expect a few people to take exception . So since you obviously are in a position to "bet your success" on your decision to stick with HB (no bias there? ) enlighten us with the insights from the test results.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Who cares what Tests said what to whom?

 

Folks that are working themselves into a lather over every S2 slight ... real or imagined ... should just buy the camera and get on with it. Give it a whirl, and see if it lights your fuse.

 

I couldn't have been more hot 'n sweaty in anticipation of getting a S2 ... however, actually using it proved to be a cold shower ... don't care what anyone else says or does, and wouldn't care if I where the only one on the planet with that opinion ... it's my photography, not theirs.

 

We know our own standards of IQ, we know what we like in an image, we know if a camera can get us where we want to go ... don't we? Well, don't we? Or more importantly do you know? If you do know, then why the need for a consensus of other people's opinions?

 

It's not like S2 demos aren't available to any prospective buyer, right? So, what's all the banter about? Is there really that deep of a personal need for validation by someone else ... does someone else have to do the thinking for you? One would think that with a $40-50K kit, one would have a mind of their own, and a mission to get a tool to achieve something they have in mind creatively. Or is that all lip service, and if so, what then is the real reasoning?

 

Erwin says this, Joe-Schmoo says something different, Victor says that, Roger says this, and Guy says that, Peter says yet something else ... on and on and on and on and on ...

 

If you like what you see, get the darned thing ... and look at it this way: it sure the heck isn't going to worst than what you already like ... and in all probability will only get better. So what's the beef, and why the stall? Just do it!

 

Back to processing ... in Lightroom ... even for my Hassey H4D/40 shots ... 'cause I'm to lazy and practical to use Phocus for 500+ wedding proofs ... I'll do the choice H4D selects in Phocus later. LR isn't THAT bad ... it's just not THAT good (including LR3).

 

Toodles,

 

-Marc

[GMB]

Who cares what Tests said what to whom?

 

Folks that are working themselves into a lather over every S2 slight ... real or imagined ... should just buy the camera and get on with it. Give it a whirl, and see if it lights your fuse.

 

I couldn't have been more hot 'n sweaty in anticipation of getting a S2 ... however, actually using it proved to be a cold shower ... don't care what anyone else says or does, and wouldn't care if I where the only one on the planet with that opinion ... it's my photography, not theirs.

 

We know our own standards of IQ, we know what we like in an image, we know if a camera can get us where we want to go ... don't we? Well, don't we? Or more importantly do you know? If you do know, then why the need for a consensus of other people's opinions?

 

It's not like S2 demos aren't available to any prospective buyer, right? So, what's all the banter about? Is there really that deep of a personal need for validation by someone else ... does someone else have to do the thinking for you? One would think that with a $40-50K kit, one would have a mind of their own, and a mission to get a tool to achieve something they have in mind creatively. Or is that all lip service, and if so, what then is the real reasoning?

 

Erwin says this, Joe-Schmoo says something different, Victor says that, Roger says this, and Guy says that, Peter says yet something else ... on and on and on and on and on ...

 

If you like what you see, get the darned thing ... and look at it this way: it sure the heck isn't going to worst than what you already like ... and in all probability will only get better. So what's the beef, and why the stall? Just do it!

 

Back to processing ... in Lightroom ... even for my Hassey H4D/40 shots ... 'cause I'm to lazy and practical to use Phocus for 500+ wedding proofs ... I'll do the choice H4D selects in Phocus later. LR isn't THAT bad ... it's just not THAT good (including LR3).

 

Toodles,

 

-Marc

 

Well put! Except that most of us still have someting left in our from our teenage days where peer recognition is very important. BTW, I tested the S2 for a weekend and I liked what I saw. I will now test the other contenders and then make up my mind whether to get into MFD and, if yes, what system.

 

However, while you are right that one should not make a decision dependant on what others think, I find these discussions mostly helpful as they do alert you to issues that you might otherwise only discover when it is too late. Even testing a camera for a weekend is not enough to discover everything.

 

Completely share you view on the sofware. I ran a few S2 files through both LR and C1. The C1 look is a bit more punchy and initiatlly more pleasing, although it can be on the verge of oversharpened (for my taste). C1 also dealt with a few problem shots better than LR. BUT, managing your shots in LR is sooooooo much better and easier, at least for me.

[ptomsu]

Who cares...we already know Peter s conclusions ? Every discussion of the S2 has to degenerate into its not as good as a Blad or a Phase. How many posts by Peter are needed to confirm the exact same POV?

 

We get it Peter ..you prefer the Blad over the S2 because it has superior image quality? You tried the S2 and then went with a Blad . But you are independent and not biased in your POV ? Remind me to never bring up politics .

 

This wasn t a test of the blad against the S2 ..it was two separate tests taken at different times.

 

Roger,

 

all this emotional inputs do not get the S2 anywhere! It is what it is! I know Peter M. and I share his opinion fully about the S2 vs. Hasselblad.

 

Leica have a long way to go till they will be able to make the S System such a perfectly aligned system as the H system is today. They also have years development ahead of Leica, so there is nothing to wonder. Leica have the potential with the S System to come to that level, with an S3 maybe even get further, question is only that by then Hasselblad will also have developed the H System further.

 

End of the day - with current RAW conversion and lens lineup the S System is not ready as I and many others would want it. Also the sexy form factor etc. cannot overcome this. So for now there is nothing topping a H system or a Phase System in digital MF - period! If you like this or not!

 

But I wish you much fun with the S2 and lenses already today

[glenerrolrd]

Roger,

 

all this emotional inputs do not get the S2 anywhere! It is what it is! I know Peter M. and I share his opinion fully about the S2 vs. Hasselblad.

 

Leica have a long way to go till they will be able to make the S System such a perfectly aligned system as the H system is today. They also have years development ahead of Leica, so there is nothing to wonder. Leica have the potential with the S System to come to that level, with an S3 maybe even get further, question is only that by then Hasselblad will also have developed the H System further.

 

End of the day - with current RAW conversion and lens lineup the S System is not ready as I and many others would want it. Also the sexy form factor etc. cannot overcome this. So for now there is nothing topping a H system or a Phase System in digital MF - period! If you like this or not!

 

But I wish you much fun with the S2 and lenses already today

 

 

Peter

 

Before you you make comments about my emotion kindly consider the flow of the thread and the history of the OTP. And please don t lecture me .

 

Peter never misses a chance to bash the S2 . And it seems neither do you.

 

Is it impossible to ever stay on the topic . (I am not making any comparison of the S2 to the HB or the Phase.) Rather I was commenting on the test referenced and the comments by the OTP. (your friend Peter).

 

The OTP drew reference to a test that I consider to be poorly done . He further went on to take this out of context by comparing two tests done at different times . This coupled with the (it seems never ending posts about how he returned his S2 and the superiority of the HB ) would lead me to believe that he just likes to be controversial.

 

I asked several times what exactly did we learn that was new from the test and why he thought its showed something "interesting". No reply just mumbling! He has an agenda to bash the S2 and I am calling him on it.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do the current status of the S2 and its competitive positioning . I will not bore you with my thinking because that not the point.

 

S2 VERSE H4D40 TEST pretty misleading when you find out that they were two different tests and Peter did the comparing.

 

Roger

[ptomsu]

Peter

 

Before you you make comments about my emotion kindly consider the flow of the thread and the history of the OTP. And please don t lecture me .

 

Peter never misses a chance to bash the S2 . And it seems neither do you.

 

Is it impossible to ever stay on the topic . (I am not making any comparison of the S2 to the HB or the Phase.) Rather I was commenting on the test referenced and the comments by the OTP. (your friend Peter).

 

The OTP drew reference to a test that I consider to be poorly done . He further went on to take this out of context by comparing two tests done at different times . This coupled with the (it seems never ending posts about how he returned his S2 and the superiority of the HB ) would lead me to believe that he just likes to be controversial.

 

I asked several times what exactly did we learn that was new from the test and why he thought its showed something "interesting". No reply just mumbling! He has an agenda to bash the S2 and I am calling him on it.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do the current status of the S2 and its competitive positioning . I will not bore you with my thinking because that not the point.

 

S2 VERSE H4D40 TEST pretty misleading when you find out that they were two different tests and Peter did the comparing.

 

Roger

 

Roger,

 

one thing first before we can continue: "STAY CALM AND DO NOT LET YOURSELF GET EMOTIONAL !!!!"

 

Sorry, but before there can be any meaningful discussion going on you need to stop all your emotions. These have nothing to do here! So please calm down and then we can continue any meaningful discussion.

 

And BTW - the test you are referring is maybe not the best test, but it reflects almost all I have found out myself in testing these systems. I myself am shooting the H and I was one of the real proponents for the S System, albeit it did not happen in time for what I needed. Meanwhile I started to love my H and will most probably stay with H, even when Leica manages to overcome all existing weaknesses and flaws of the S System. Very sorry for Leica.

 

In my opinion the H System is the most advanced digital MF system today - overall seen.

[glenerrolrd]

Roger,

 

one thing first before we can continue: "STAY CALM AND DO NOT LET YOURSELF GET EMOTIONAL !!!!"

 

Sorry, but before there can be any meaningful discussion going on you need to stop all your emotions. These have nothing to do here! So please calm down and then we can continue any meaningful discussion.

 

And BTW - the test you are referring is maybe not the best test, but it reflects almost all I have found out myself in testing these systems. I myself am shooting the H and I was one of the real proponents for the S System, albeit it did not happen in time for what I needed. Meanwhile I started to love my H and will most probably stay with H, even when Leica manages to overcome all existing weaknesses and flaws of the S System. Very sorry for Leica.

 

In my opinion the H System is the most advanced digital MF system today - overall seen.

 

Peter

 

Cleaver way to take the focus of the discussion off the subject .

 

Every post always goes first to the your personal point of view on the merits of the HB system and the weaknesses of the S2. Why do you have to repeat yourself in every exchange?

 

The aspect of the test results that Peter spoke specifically to in his original post related to comparative image quality. He implies with the title that it was a test of the H4D against the S2 . He declares the H4D the winner.

 

Further review questioned the accuracy and therefore the relevance of two poorly executed tests done on different days. The first test was between the H4D/40 and 50. A second test was done on the S2 at a different time .

 

Peter takes every opportunity to repeat his bad experience with the S2 and support his /your decision to go with HB. You are now doing the same thing . Anyone that doubts this can simply review your posts.

 

In fact I don t think we differ much at all in our evaluation of the various MF systems or in the strengths and weaknesses of the current S2 situation. The design of the S2 has substantial potential yet has been held back by some very poor execution by Leica. No argument at all here .

 

My issue which I couldn t make any clearer is that this post provided little if anything new ,took facts out of context and simply was intended to create controversy . Three questions: (1) Did you learn anything new by reading or comparing the tests? (2) Do you think its Ok to use these tests to draw a conclusion on the comparative IQ of HB verse S2 ? (3) Do you think a post like this placed on the S2 forum would create controversy ?

 

My conclusion was "consider the source" .

 

.

 

Probably best that we just end this discussion here without further debate as it adds no value to anyone.

 

Roger

[markowich]

roger,

if your 'consider the source' comment referred to me being biased against the S2 and in favor of the H system, then you are totally wrong.

i think that we all (or at least most of us) agree that the S concept has significant merits but i have to admit that i am still somewhat disappointed in leica for not optimizing IQ performance with good software decisions etc.

nevertheless, i am seriously thinking of rebuying the S2 with the four lenses (as of today 90% chance), simply because of better portability and handling and since i have decided that i can live with its IQ shortcomings relative to other MF systems while still giving an advantage over nikon D3x. i was certainly disappointed when i had the S2 with 70mm and 180mm last time, in retroanalysis simply because i had expected too much from it which it could not deliver. also, my copy of the 70mm lens was faulty and has gone back to leica since.

if you ask my opinion on the best IQ in MF, then my answer is P65+, the best overall system is clearly H and the most appealing is S.

after all, nobody can forbid me to learn---))))

peter

 

 

 

Peter

 

Cleaver way to take the focus of the discussion off the subject .

 

Every post always goes first to the your personal point of view on the merits of the HB system and the weaknesses of the S2. Why do you have to repeat yourself in every exchange?

 

The aspect of the test results that Peter spoke specifically to in his original post related to comparative image quality. He implies with the title that it was a test of the H4D against the S2 . He declares the H4D the winner.

 

Further review questioned the accuracy and therefore the relevance of two poorly executed tests done on different days. The first test was between the H4D/40 and 50. A second test was done on the S2 at a different time .

 

Peter takes every opportunity to repeat his bad experience with the S2 and support his /your decision to go with HB. You are now doing the same thing . Anyone that doubts this can simply review your posts.

 

In fact I don t think we differ much at all in our evaluation of the various MF systems or in the strengths and weaknesses of the current S2 situation. The design of the S2 has substantial potential yet has been held back by some very poor execution by Leica. No argument at all here .

 

My issue which I couldn t make any clearer is that this post provided little if anything new ,took facts out of context and simply was intended to create controversy . Three questions: (1) Did you learn anything new by reading or comparing the tests? (2) Do you think its Ok to use these tests to draw a conclusion on the comparative IQ of HB verse S2 ? (3) Do you think a post like this placed on the S2 forum would create controversy ?

 

My conclusion was "consider the source" .

 

.

 

Probably best that we just end this discussion here without further debate as it adds no value to anyone.

 

Roger

[Grummz]

I thought my last thread was bad...

 

This forum is filled with pretentious and preening egotists who spend more time taking potshots than being helpful.

 

It's really a deep shame. I hope to find a place with a better community and more focus on enjoying leica and photography.

[mirage]

Hasselblad schlägt Leica S2 vernichtend.

[Marty]

Writing it in German doesn't make it true