A question about rendering/DOF

[Daedalus2000]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a simple question and I hope you can help me with your expertise. Let's assume that we want to create images with low depth of field and we are given two choices (assume the two systems have the same number of megapixels):

 

1) A leica S with say a 100mm shot at f2

 

2) A 35mm "full frame" camera with an 80mm lens shot at f1.6. 

 

If we follow the maths and shoot from the same distance then in theory the two systems will give the same dof. But, do you expect the Leica S system to have a better image overall in terms of other qualities? If yes what will these be? Will it be the color? The tonal transition? The focus fallout?

 

What I am trying to understand is if it is worth investing in good lenses for the S system (like the 100 f2), or you can get the same look with a cheaper system.

 

Thanks

 

 

[Jeff S]

There are myriad variables in the overall workflow from camera to edit to print to display (including papers, inks, techniques, print size, lighting, the image itself, etc).  Add to that your own tastes, preferences, evaluation criteria....and skills.  

 

The best way to answer your question is to rent or demo the S and compare it to a 35mm camera of your choice, recognizing that there are many types of the latter.....not to mention different quality of lenses.   

 

That's what I did....with the S006 and 30-90 zoom.  Very impressive, but ultimately not the right tools for me.  Results would likely have differed, using my unique evaluation criteria, with the S007 and primes.  Math had nothing to do with my assessment....of gear or print quality.

 

Jeff

[jip]

Also there is simply no 80mm F1.6 (or 1.4) that is as good as the 100mm is at F2 at the pixel pitch of the Leica S sensors! 

[kparseg]

It depends... Since you're comparing cameras with the same megapixel number, I assume you're talking about Nikon d810? If you're talking about Nikon 85 1.4G, it won't match Leica 100S, period. Nikon's 85mm is worse in terms of sharpness (especially wide open), chromatic aberrations (but can be corrected in software), flare resistance... I'd say they both are quite slow to autofocus, especially in dim light. Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with Otus 85mm, but based on reviews it's a fantastic lens (but no autofocus, if that matters).

 

If you talk about Canon 85mm f1.2ii, it's a stunning lens, amazing for portraits. Same issues as Nikon's 85mm f1.4g, but sharpness at f1.2 is great, autofocus is slow but very accurate, bokeh is fantastic. Canon is rumored to update the lens some time soon with their BR technology that should eliminate nasty purple fringing wide open. 

 

Also keep in mind that Sigma will release 85mm f1.4 Art in September.

 

I've used Leica 100S for some short time, but based on my modest experience the only non-medium format lens that can match Leica 100S in IQ is Canon 200mm f2.0.

 

If you live close to Connecticut, I can give you 100S to try. 

 

 

[Daedalus2000]

Also there is simply no 80mm F1.6 (or 1.4) that is as good as the 100mm is at F2 at the pixel pitch of the Leica S sensors! 

 

What do you mean by this? Do you mean in terms of sharpness? BTW, I was trying to use a more theoretical setup to try to understand the benefits of MF when we match some other properties. Thanks.

[Daedalus2000]

It depends... Since you're comparing cameras with the same megapixel number, I assume you're talking about Nikon d810? If you're talking about Nikon 85 1.4G, it won't match Leica 100S, period. Nikon's 85mm is worse in terms of sharpness (especially wide open), chromatic aberrations (but can be corrected in software), flare resistance... I'd say they both are quite slow to autofocus, especially in dim light. Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with Otus 85mm, but based on reviews it's a fantastic lens (but no autofocus, if that matters).

 

If you talk about Canon 85mm f1.2ii, it's a stunning lens, amazing for portraits. Same issues as Nikon's 85mm f1.4g, but sharpness at f1.2 is great, autofocus is slow but very accurate, bokeh is fantastic. Canon is rumored to update the lens some time soon with their BR technology that should eliminate nasty purple fringing wide open. 

 

Also keep in mind that Sigma will release 85mm f1.4 Art in September.

 

I've used Leica 100S for some short time, but based on my modest experience the only non-medium format lens that can match Leica 100S in IQ is Canon 200mm f2.0.

 

If you live close to Connecticut, I can give you 100S to try. 

 

First of all thank you for your nice analysis of some alternatives.

 

As I said above, I was trying to avoid talking about specific lenses in order to get a more generic result on why MF is better in terms of some image qualities, but yes if we want to be specific I had in mind the Canon 85/f1.2 version II. One can use it with a Canon or with the Sony A7RII and an adapter. I have actually used it and as you say it is a great lens but the purple fringing is bothering me. Does the S100 f2 give you any such problems? Unfortunately I do not live in Connecticut, but may I should see if I can rent one.

So I guess from the answers above, the main point is that the difference between the two systems in real life will be the quality of the lenses and not necessarily differences in other properties such as the ones I mentioned....

[kparseg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First of all thank you for your nice analysis of some alternatives.

 

As I said above, I was trying to avoid talking about specific lenses in order to get a more generic result on why MF is better in terms of some image qualities, but yes if we want to be specific I had in mind the Canon 85/f1.2 version II. One can use it with a Canon or with the Sony A7RII and an adapter. I have actually used it and as you say it is a great lens but the purple fringing is bothering me. Does the S100 f2 give you any such problems? Unfortunately I do not live in Connecticut, but may I should see if I can rent one.

So I guess from the answers above, the main point is that the difference between the two systems in real life will be the quality of the lenses and not necessarily differences in other properties such as the ones I mentioned....

I think the difference will be in both lenses and the sensor, because MF sensor of course will also affect the way the images look. Leica will definitely give you better texture, smoother out of focus rendition, more pleasant colors (many people do not like Sony/Nikon skin tones, so it may be a big deal for you). Also keep in mind that Canon 85mm is not a weather sealed lens, and it's not as well balanced as Leica 100S (Canon feels heavier in the front, probably because it's short). 

 

I wish I still had my 85mm f1.2ii to test it with 100S side by side... purple fringing is there wide open and in high contrast shots. Pretty much any f1.2-1.4 lens would give you fringing wide open. I did not see any fringing on 100S.

 

In a nutshell, 100S is better than Canon's 85mm f1.2ii in everything (except that it's not f1.2 and is 3 times more expensive). If you have money, 100S is the better choice! If money is an issue, I'd suggest you wait till Sigma releases its 85mm Art lens in September. Canon will eventually release a BR version of the 85mm lens, but nobody knows when and it probably will be more expensive.

 

I attached one photograph taken with 100S. Nothing fancy, just a random picture which was quite heavily cropped and no other adjustments were done. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Daedalus2000]

I think the difference will be in both lenses and the sensor, because MF sensor of course will also affect the way the images look. Leica will definitely give you better texture, smoother out of focus rendition, more pleasant colors (many people do not like Sony/Nikon skin tones, so it may be a big deal for you). Also keep in mind that Canon 85mm is not a weather sealed lens, and it's not as well balanced as Leica 100S (Canon feels heavier in the front, probably because it's short). 

 

I wish I still had my 85mm f1.2ii to test it with 100S side by side... purple fringing is there wide open and in high contrast shots. Pretty much any f1.2-1.4 lens would give you fringing wide open. I did not see any fringing on 100S.

 

In a nutshell, 100S is better than Canon's 85mm f1.2ii in everything (except that it's not f1.2 and is 3 times more expensive). If you have money, 100S is the better choice! If money is an issue, I'd suggest you wait till Sigma releases its 85mm Art lens in September. Canon will eventually release a BR version of the 85mm lens, but nobody knows when and it probably will be more expensive.

 

I attached one photograph taken with 100S. Nothing fancy, just a random picture which was quite heavily cropped and no other adjustments were done. 

 

That is what I was hoping I would hear. The S2 is giving me images that look to me much better than the Sony ones, and really I am trying to understand why this is. I find the Sony colours not to my satisfaction, but I always thought that maybe it is me that cannot calibrate the post production process well.

 

One lens that I use and gives me results that I like is the Mamiya 80/f1.9. It is not autofocus unfortunately and not as good (I guess) as the Leica 100/f2. Here is an image from the combo S2+80/f1.9:

 

Thanks again for your reply, I really appreciate it. Beautiful colors and detail in your image as well. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[albertknappmd]

I agree. The best way is to test two systems on your own... There are too many variables that cannot be accounted for mathematically or in this case metaphysically!

Albert      

[Jeff S]

 

So I guess from the answers above, the main point is that the difference between the two systems in real life will be the quality of the lenses and not necessarily differences in other properties such as the ones I mentioned....

 

A lot more than even the lenses.....as I've noted.   See for yourself.

 

Jeff

[Daedalus2000]

A lot more than even the lenses.....as I've noted.   See for yourself.

 

Jeff

 

I see differences by myself, but I am really trying to understand what are the qualities that the S system offers over say a 35mm system, if we keep other parameters equal. I like to be a bit analytical and not just accept what I see without questioning my own impressions (e.g. it can be placebo, or other differences that can be removed with the right processing etc). I also asked because every lens is so expensive that part of me says 'do not spend the money on it, just buy a fast "full frame" lens'! :-)

 

Thanks.

[Daedalus2000]

I agree. The best way is to test two systems on your own... There are too many variables that cannot be accounted for mathematically or in this case metaphysically!

Albert      

 

I was hoping for some more analytical approach, to justify further spending on the system! :  

[kparseg]

I see differences by myself, but I am really trying to understand what are the qualities that the S system offers over say a 35mm system, if we keep other parameters equal. I like to be a bit analytical and not just accept what I see without questioning my own impressions (e.g. it can be placebo, or other differences that can be removed with the right processing etc). I also asked because every lens is so expensive that part of me says 'do not spend the money on it, just buy a fast "full frame" lens'! :-)

 

Thanks.

This is a very common question/concern for those who think about switching to medium format. And I don't think you can separate MF sensor and lenses in getting final results... Usually, MF shooters notice that the texture is more pronounced and the out of focus areas appear very gradually. If you look let's say at many 135 lenses, such as 85mm f1.2 or 200mm f2.0, they have beautiful bokeh but there is a distinct line between bokeh and sharp parts of the image. It's like someone drew a line between these areas of the image. 

 

Even thought Leica S sensor size is not that much larger than that of 135 system (0.8 crop), this larger area still allows images to pop up. It's hard to explain but I think it's also at least in part due to a great microcontrast. This is something similar to what Canon/Nikon shooters say about Zeiss lenses, which also have nice microcontrast and kind of 3D appearance. 

 

One thing to remember. Bad image taken with Leica S and 100S will still be a bad image. A great image taken with Sony a7rii and Canon 85m f1.2 will be a great image. If you know what you do and know limitations of Leica S bodies, it'd be hard to beat images taken with Leica S. 

[dritz]

Another 100S sample. 

Type 006

ISO 400, 1/90th at f3.4

 

Brilliantly sharp at the plane of focus. Lovely bokeh everywhere else!  And always humane in rendering humans.

 

This lens is glued to my camera.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jeff S]

I see differences by myself, but I am really trying to understand what are the qualities that the S system offers over say a 35mm system, if we keep other parameters equal.   

But you control many of the other parameters, and there are numerous important ones, objective and subjective.  The testing conditions, evaluation criteria, and assessment can vary greatly by the user.  What are the differences you see?  How important are they?  Could you have made changes anywhere in the workflow to change results?  Are those changes acceptable?

 

Bottom line, If you can't decide after making prints with both systems, then the decision is clear.....to me at least....save your money.

 

But for me, system differences come down to a lot more than print quality, however that's defined.  For starters, if I don't like the viewing system and how I see the subject, the rest doesn't matter.  And if I don't like the camera menu/interface/ergonomics, then I won't enjoy taking it out.  And if it's not fully weather sealed or has other limitations in terms of speed, handling, stabilization, etc, then the picture may not get made, and the print discussion is mute.  Cameras are practical tools for me, not math tests.  I know a great print when I see one....and the camera/lens is but a small part in that result.  People generally have no idea about the gear used, nor do they care.  Tool choices are increasing day by day......see Hasselblad.

 

Jeff

[djmay]

I see differences by myself, but I am really trying to understand what are the qualities that the S system offers over say a 35mm system, if we keep other parameters equal. I like to be a bit analytical and not just accept what I see without questioning my own impressions (e.g. it can be placebo, or other differences that can be removed with the right processing etc). I also asked because every lens is so expensive that part of me says 'do not spend the money on it, just buy a fast "full frame" lens'! :-)

 

Thanks.

I have Leica M9 and Leica S 006. The M9 is fantastic and I love it. However, since getting the S in January, I have not used the M9. The reason is that as good as the M9 is, the S images "grab" me more. Both are systems, and since it is the performance of the entire system, one cannot pinpoint a single factor. However, the sensor of the S is 56% more area and that makes a noticeable difference in detail and transitions such as from light to dark. I see this even at A4 size with some images. Secondly, the S lenses were designed for a sensor, while my M9 lenses were not designed specifically for a sensor. This means that in order to achieve the full potential of the S I depend on a tripod, mirror lock-up or shutter speeds 1/250 second or faster when handheld. I would say you have to be prepared to do things slower with the S than with a FF camera. If you need to move fast, you may be frustrated with the S.

[Daedalus2000]

But you control many of the other parameters, and there are numerous important ones, objective and subjective.  The testing conditions, evaluation criteria, and assessment can vary greatly by the user.  What are the differences you see?  How important are they?  Could you have made changes anywhere in the workflow to change results?  Are those changes acceptable?

 

Bottom line, If you can't decide after making prints with both systems, then the decision is clear.....to me at least....save your money.

 

But for me, system differences come down to a lot more than print quality, however that's defined.  For starters, if I don't like the viewing system and how I see the subject, the rest doesn't matter.  And if I don't like the camera menu/interface/ergonomics, then I won't enjoy taking it out.  And if it's not fully weather sealed or has other limitations in terms of speed, handling, stabilization, etc, then the picture may not get made, and the print discussion is mute.  Cameras are practical tools for me, not math tests.  I know a great print when I see one....and the camera/lens is but a small part in that result.  People generally have no idea about the gear used, nor do they care.  Tool choices are increasing day by day......see Hasselblad.

 

Jeff

 

Very good points, thank you. BTW, I remember walking in the rain with the S2 and feeling happy that the camera was getting wet and I did not care about it!   Never did that with my M! 

[Daedalus2000]

I have Leica M9 and Leica S 006. The M9 is fantastic and I love it. However, since getting the S in January, I have not used the M9. The reason is that as good as the M9 is, the S images "grab" me more. Both are systems, and since it is the performance of the entire system, one cannot pinpoint a single factor. However, the sensor of the S is 56% more area and that makes a noticeable difference in detail and transitions such as from light to dark. I see this even at A4 size with some images. Secondly, the S lenses were designed for a sensor, while my M9 lenses were not designed specifically for a sensor. This means that in order to achieve the full potential of the S I depend on a tripod, mirror lock-up or shutter speeds 1/250 second or faster when handheld. I would say you have to be prepared to do things slower with the S than with a FF camera. If you need to move fast, you may be frustrated with the S.

 

Absolutely agree with you. The S images grab me more and that is why I asked the question, to try to understand why this is happening. I also try to use faster speeds, but I found that occasionally I can use lower speeds if I adopt the right method of keeping the camera steady. I was hoping that maybe one day I can move to S 007 and be a bit more relaxed about the ISO, but I am not sure how much of a difference the CCD vs CMOS sensor makes in terms of colour and other qualities. I have not shot with an S007 you see..

[Daedalus2000]

Another 100S sample. 

Type 006

ISO 400, 1/90th at f3.4

 

Brilliantly sharp at the plane of focus. Lovely bokeh everywhere else!  And always humane in rendering humans.

 

This lens is glued to my camera.

 

Beautiful image and example of what I like about the S.... More posts like this and my wallet will suffer... 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[kparseg]

Nothing fancy here but it shows how great the flare resistance of 100S is. Quite heavy crop from the original image with no adjustment. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!