S2 - what for?

[stephan_w]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello

 

I have seen that some of you have really got some experience with the S2, and so I hope for more enlightened advise than I may get somewhere else.

 

This is the point: I have the oportunity to get a S2 for an interesting price, and my dealer gave me the oportunity to shoot an hour or so with the S2 to compare it with my D3x (AA-filter removed, dedicated profile for LR, with the 60 macro for comparison). The shooting was portrait, this is what I make mainly. I took me about a day or so to check and compare the files, make prints and try to make me an opinion. But I'm stuck so far in making a decision. Even the price difference apart, I wouldn't know what to do.

 

So:

 

The image quality of the S2 (I tested it with the 70/2.5) is fine and slightly better than from the D3x, but in direct comparison in prints the differences it hard to see unless you make big (very big) prints.

 

The 70/2,5 is a fine lens, but renders a bit like the Summicron 50 and the bokeh is not as nice as expected from such an expensive lens. So i consider the 120 makro, which means extra costs.

 

I miss the CLS-flash system I use often with my Nikons

 

The usability of the S2 needs a bit training, not as conviniant as the Nikon

 

But the viewfinder is really magnificient and IMHO the only real argument in favor of the S2.

 

So if I may ask, what are you doing with your S2 (Portrait, landscape, makro), that you feel is so much superior to your pro-dslr to justify buying one?

 

Thank you

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

Hello

 

I have seen that some of you have really got some experience with the S2, and so I hope for more enlightened advise than I may get somewhere else.

 

 

So:

 

The image quality ...in prints the differences it hard to see unless you make big (very big) prints.

 

The 70/2,5 is a fine lens, but renders a bit like the Summicron 50 and the bokeh is not as nice as expected from such an expensive lens. So i consider the 120 makro, which means extra costs.

 

I miss the CLS-flash system I use often with my Nikons

 

The usability of the S2 needs a bit training, not as conviniant as the Nikon

 

But the viewfinder is really magnificient and IMHO the only real argument in favor of the S2.

 

So if I may ask, what are you doing with your S2 (Portrait, landscape, makro), that you feel is so much superior to your pro-dslr to justify buying one?

 

Thank you

 

Stephan,

 

I am glad that you posed your question here as there are many ...mostly pros, who can attempt to elucidate those elements of the camera that persuaded them to enter the S system.

 

My personal take is as follows....

 

I am not a pro and have long ago desisted in attempting to justify to anyone let alone myself purchases of this nature. I have a 40 year experience with 35mm, MF and LF cameras and for the past 7 years have moved through a variety of bodies and systems in the digital photo realm. Most recently Canon 1D, 1D3MkII, 5D, 7D, Nikon D3, D3s D700 Sony A900 Leica M8, M8.2 and M9 cameras. Hasselblad H1 --> H2 with P20 back --> H3D II 39 with multiple lenses...Alpa with 36 and 45 lenses for landscape with the H3D II 39 back.

 

Rather than upgrading to a H4D 50 or 60 I moved to the S2...a S2-P with 70 lens.

 

My purchase was contingent upon my finding value for my vision and applicability for the varied use that I would subject the camera and lenses.

 

I shoot landscapes small and grand elements, environmental portraiture - usually in a poorly lit venue in West Africa as part of a multinational relief effort, and the occasional macro.

 

At your leisure I would direct you to a gallery at GETDPI with a smattering of images from the camera:

 

The GetDPI Photography Forums - docmoore's Album: Leica S2-P

 

There is really no need for a MF camera if you are not going to print big or crop severely. If you do then this camera is such an easy companion....three buttons are set for ISO, Exposure Compensation and Drive settings...2s timer with mirror lock. I rarely need to change much else on the camera. I find the usability of this camera far exceeds that of the Nikon, Canon or Sony systems I have used. You will need a few weeks to understand the overall gestalt of the camera user interface. Matches the sense of a M camera but with AF as a backup ... wonderful for those of us with less that perfect vision. Although the VF allows manual focus with adapted lenses without difficulty.

 

Having used a D70, D700, D3 and now using a D3s for portraits I can tell you that even with a dedicated LR profile...not really a profile in the sense of a C1 profile but I know what you mean...you may have major issues with Northern European Caucasian skin tones. I did. Unless you really like cyan and yellow tones. I changed to the Sony A900 and could not believe how good the colors were out of the box. The Leica S2 is close to the Sony...much less work in post process.

 

If you are not overwhelmed with the 70S then you have a few options....I use P67 lenses with an adapter and find the P67 100 Macro and the 105 especially nice. Bokeh on the 105 is fabulous....Both lenses and an adapter will cost you 25% that of the Leica 120S. Of course the 120 is much better...but these may buy you some time until you are ready to step into the 120S.

 

I believe that the Leica SF 58 is adequate but with this level of equipment a Profoto D1 or Hensel system really shines.

 

This is a camera that is as comfortable as the Nikon D3 series camera but has the underlying chip architecture (CCD), ergonomics and feel that I prefer. The more I shoot with it the more I want to shoot with it.

 

Again if you limit your vision or process to small print then you may not want to explore just how compelling the camera and system become as you gain familiarity with it.

 

I look forward to reading the input from the varied group here....

 

Bob

[JMacD]

As just said, if you don't need to do huge prints, or extreme crops, both of which I needed, then MF is less justifiable.

When I have handed the S2 to friends who are also earning their livelihood with photography, their first reaction is " what a viewfinder".

 

How well i see influences how well I shoot, and how much I enjoy shooting.

 

If your prints are not huge, you may still rationalize the investment merely by how well you see through the viewfinder.

 

BTW, the S 120 is incredible. I did not purchase the 70 as I rarely shoot in that focal length ratio any more. I also have a 35 for landscape and groups. I have used the 180 and like it, but when lenses are this dear, I choose carefully.

[stephan_w]

thank you so far for your answers.

 

I had the oportunity to shoot some frames with the S2 in comparison with my D3x (some portraits and body shots).

 

Difficult to see a difference up to A2, though it is there. My D3x has the AA filter removed and the color calibration is made with the x-rite color checker, that make the colors look almost the same as from the S2 (or m9).

 

I noticed some draw-backs: The S2 has less ability to catch up burned highlights in light skin tones. But I will make more prints in A2 to check.

 

Anyone using the 120mm for portrait?

[JMacD]

Yes I use the 120 for portraits. Best lens for that. Terrific lens. I initially tried a 100 Hassy lens with an adaptor, but the only reason IMO for using non S lenses is if Leica hasn't yet issued that focal length. I will swap my 120 for CS when available, but right now any 120 is in short supply. If you're still trying to make up your mind on the S2, get a demo 120 to try. It might help you to make up your mind.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Hi Stephen, welcome.

 

It takes some time to come to grips with any new camera system, and the S2 is no exception. Not only the operation, but the characteristics of the files it produces. The same sort of due diligence is required here as you did with your Nikon.

 

IMO, it is more than just file size and printing larger, or being able to crop more severely, (the way Art Directors often do) ... it is the tonal gradations and 16 bit color capture that provides more data to work with IF exposed properly. This is a CCD based camera, so has to be processed differently than a CMOS sensored camera. Those of us that have used other MFD systems know how to do this a bit better than some others may. It just takes time.

 

I think we need more S2 color profile choices for Lightroom, and someone will do it if Leica doesn't. I think they have gotten the message, so time will tell.

 

Once the camera is set up in the custom settings area, it is very fast to deal with ... but that also just takes time.

 

The S70mm is really excellent, but like many normal focal lengths, it can produce fabulous OOF areas or less so depending on distance to subject and how far away the background may be.

 

The S120 is the best optic I've ever used ... 35mm or MF, followed by the S180.

 

The advantage of these lenses are that they were designed from the ground up for digital, no legacy lenses that may or may not be up to the job.

 

For reference, I also use a Hasselblad H4D/60 and Leica M9s ... and once used a Nikon D3X and all the Nano coated optics right up to the 200/2. NIce camera ... I don't miss it at all.

 

-Marc

[stephan_w]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My impression is, that mostly MF-users apreciate the S2, as they get a more practicable system without loss of image quality. I think they are also not frightened by the price.

 

But hontesly, I printed now about a dozen of A2 prints comming from my D3x and the S2 files, and there is almost no difference to see.

 

And give up the CLS-System for that?

 

Probably I should rent one for longer time. Trying to stay a bit rational, I cannot find an argument, except the viewfinder, of course.

 

Thinking .........if only i had more time to think about it.

[dfarkas]

My impression is, that mostly MF-users apreciate the S2, as they get a more practicable system without loss of image quality. I think they are also not frightened by the price.

 

But hontesly, I printed now about a dozen of A2 prints comming from my D3x and the S2 files, and there is almost no difference to see.

 

And give up the CLS-System for that?

 

Probably I should rent one for longer time. Trying to stay a bit rational, I cannot find an argument, except the viewfinder, of course.

 

Thinking .........if only i had more time to think about it.

 

Stephan,

 

A2 print size is only 16x24". This is a pretty small print. A D3x file will yield a print resolution of 250 DPI while the S2 at this size yields 312 DPI. Not an earth-shattering difference as both are quite high at this size. I've found that S2 prints look better bigger, as more detail is revealed and the image is allowed to open up. A1 is also too small (great size for M9, though). I'd suggest printing B0 for a better comparison (1x1.5m).

 

David

[mwilliamsphotography]

It is probably unfair to try and convince someone who can't see the difference. This has been a never ending debate that centers on subjectivity, so will never be resolved.

 

My experience with MFD tells me that if there is a difference by printing larger, then the richness of minor detail and tonal gradations should be visible even when printed at 11" X 14". These are not obvious differences, but subtile over-all improvements that one becomes accustomed to seeing when working with larger sensor cameras. Otherwise, on the surface, it is difficult to determine any major difference. Same for the difference between certain 35mm DSLRs and a Nikon D3X ... where many feel the Sony A900 is equal to the Nikon D3X in over-all IQ at 1/3 the price.

 

Therefore, IMHO, If those differences escape some eyes, then so be it ... after-all, it does take time to pull out all the benefits of a larger sensor camera, come to expect them, and be disappointed when they are missing.

 

In a similar manner, there are not huge differences between my S2P and Hasselblad H4D/60, but they are most definitely there. The S2 form factor does promote use for certain applications, and the H4D/60 plays its role in others. Depends greatly on what, where, and how you shoot.

 

If the OP relies on the Nikon CLS wireless system it is hard to debate one's familiarity and use of something they have relied on to deliver results.

 

What the OP should also realize is that most photographers that use a MFD system like the S2, H4, or P1 in concert with artificial lighting, rarely utilize limited power speed-lights for their work. Powerful systems like the Profoto AIR, Bron RFS, or Elinchrom Skyport controlled Strobes are the norm, and speed-lights are the rare exception. Not to mention that HSS is no match for high speed sync from CS, HC, or P1-LS lenses (which now can sync up 1/1600 at full power). Which is why Leica needs to get out the CS versions pronto BTW).

 

If someone is satisfied with what they have, why talk them into a $40,000. system that they can barely see a difference in?

 

-Marc

[cgarnerhome]

Judging by print quality is never so simple as it depends on so many factors - quality of profiles, paper selection, printer quality, image processing techniques, etc. In my setting I can see some differences when printing 16x20. To print large(I often print up to 40x60) is one of the reasons I bought the S2. For me, the real motivation was the extra pixels and the quality of lenses. The edge to edge sharpness of the lenses is where I see the biggest difference over my current Canon system. At the end of the day, all I can say is there is something very satisfying to me about using this camera that is beyond objective results. It motivates me to shoot more as I just love the feel.

Cam

cgarnerphoto.com

[sheikhrafiq79]

I compare D3 with R9/dmr, print sizes 24x36, the dmr was little bit batter than D3

[stephan_w]

Thank you for your input. I really apreciate it and get a bit an idea.

 

I don't have to get talked into something or out, I just wanted to be sure that I don't miss something while comparing those cameras. I have no problem to admit for example that some M glas on the M9 is better than the Nikon equivalent on the D3x. I even made a year ago a comparison between the M9 and the S2 and was surprised by the tiny difference on large prints (but not VERY large prints).

 

What counts for me is what I get when I take a camera and shoot. When I miss a picture because the camera has a design flaw, then I don't care if it has millions of pixels.

 

This is why I made this "real life" test, printed the files on my Epson 3800 and still look at the pictures.

 

About the CLS, I use 5 flashes and more and apreciate the flexibilty of the system, especially the iTTL by radiotransmitters. Maybe not the most important point, but certainly this can be an argument when going out to make pictures and have some light in the bag..

[Guest]

One impression...having moved from the Epson 3800 to 4900 printer recently.

 

Your printer may, and I do say may, be the limiting factor in resolving differences...even at smaller sizes 8x12 11x14 there is a significant resolution and tonality improvement in the new generation printers. I use Colorbyte ImagePrint 8 with both and believe that you may miss a fair amount of difference here.

 

However, Marc's observation is correct and to the point ...if you are happy with your process and output do not make a change.

 

I only shoot MF because I cannot paint.

 

 

Bob

[stephan_w]

Your printer may, and I do say may, be the limiting factor in resolving differences...even at smaller sizes 8x12 11x14 there is a significant resolution and tonality improvement in the new generation printers. I use Colorbyte ImagePrint 8 with both and believe that you may miss a fair amount of difference here.

 

This is an intersting point, I will consider this.

 

Following the advise of some posters here, I started to print crops in A2. They are about 1/4 to 1/5 of the original size, and now some differences start to show up and the S2 shows a clear advantage (But shows also some moirée where the D3x doesn't).

 

What is also evident for me: A slightly difference of focussing will wipe away any difference in picture quality.

[eronald]

This is an intersting point, I will consider this.

 

Following the advise of some posters here, I started to print crops in A2. They are about 1/4 to 1/5 of the original size, and now some differences start to show up and the S2 shows a clear advantage (But shows also some moirée where the D3x doesn't).

 

What is also evident for me: A slightly difference of focussing will wipe away any difference in picture quality.

 

 

 

I don't think you missed much. The S2 files like all MF files should be a bit "thicker" and more detailed, and in fashion or beauty will be easier to retouch. On the other hand, the D3x is a fast flexible camera that can go higher in ISO.

 

The problem with this comparison is that the D3x is doubtless the highest resolving 35mm SLR in existence, while the S2 is the smallest MF sensor (with the greatest ease of use). As such the two are not so different. If you want a camera that clearly resolves better, you need to go for one of the larger MF solutions with 60 or 80 MP.

 

Edmund