H3D-II/39 now $22K

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lenses designed for 645 cameras don't need to have the same resolution as those designed for smaller formats such as 35mm and 30x45. The larger sensor area will make it up.

 

This is true with film cameras and is still true with digital cameras.

 

Also the 70mm S lens open aperture is f/2.5 and the 50 lux asph. open aperture is f/1.4, if you stop the 50 lux asph. down to f/2.5, I think it's very unlikely the 70mm S lens can still match it on a MTF chart.

 

It great to hear all these great things about the S anyway, all I'll need is some money.

[AlanG]

Considering that no lens is perfect, then some software correction is always possible and likely will be beneficial if your goal is "accurate" reproduction.

 

No lens is going to be equally sharp from center to edge, have perfectly even illumination, no distortion of any kind and no c/a. Plus all of this will vary at different distances and apertures. Is there any chance that none of the S2 lenses will exhibit any focus shift when stopping down?

 

That being said, I recently added the vignetting back in to an interior photograph because it made it look more dramatic and better in my opinion.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

This is true, I have some Mamiya glass that one would not think would produce a good image but in the large sensor area it makes up for it. Not that having great glass is not something to strive for but compared to 35mm it is just not as critical. We all know the Leica glass excels in the 35mm world. But seriously in MF i am doing just fine with a little less than optimum on a couple lenses. This difference will be as it always is with Leica glass is the performance wide open or close to it. That is what Leica glass has always done better than anyone else. And again why the DMR and M8 excel in the 35mm world.

[georg]

I'll stop my discussion here and will wait till the first results of the S2 will be available (as I've said, the prototypes already take pictures and the results are VERY promising).

 

The disadvantage of the S-designs will be the need for retrofocus ~<70mm focal length but the big advantage is the possible size, M-lenses have to be extremely compact, S-lenses are huge in comparison (more than just +56%).

[paulmoore]

Lenses designed for 645 cameras don't need to have the same resolution as those designed for smaller formats such as 35mm and 30x45. The larger sensor area will make it up.

 

This is true with film cameras and is still true with digital cameras.

 

Also the 70mm S lens open aperture is f/2.5 and the 50 lux asph. open aperture is f/1.4, if you stop the 50 lux asph. down to f/2.5, I think it's very unlikely the 70mm S lens can still match it on a MTF chart.

 

It great to hear all these great things about the S anyway, all I'll need is some money.

 

Really! I have to take issue with your post.. where do you come up with your theories? You are a self proclaimed gearhead but are you a practicing photographer? You have really stepped into this time with your last pontification, I mean post.

The fact is, the larger the sensor and greater the megapixel, the greater the need for high resolution lenses..this is why so many canon ff users are using leica lenses..maximum resolving power for their sensor. This is why lenses manufactures came up with lenses designed for digital.. with not-so-arbitary designations like HR.

Also would match-up at least one of my 6x6 rollei schneider lenses to my leica r lenses with confidence the schneiders are not lacking..you can google the apo 90 schneider mtfs.

I have not seen the charts for the new s2 lenses and until I do and see some samples from the lenses I will hold my tongue on whether it is better than the asph 50mm f1.4.or any other lenses.

You have claimed at least twice that you would not "blow" your money on the s2 so I find it odd that you continue to be so active in this forum and spout out silly comments like you are some sort of expert - so are you an optics designer as well?

I think you do a disservice to folks here trying to learn when you post things off the top of your head.. or other areas.. when the fact is you really don't know.

[sdai]

The fact is, the larger the sensor and greater the megapixel, the greater the need for high resolution lenses

 

If by claiming that I'm wrong automatically makes you correct, so be it. The more you talk, the more you reveal how little you know. Your knowledge is not sufficient for a discussion at this level.

[Gentleman Villain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Take a look at Paul Moore's portfolio...It's f*cking awesome...I listen when he talks

 

actually, I listen to everybody and consider all sides

[sdai]

Take a look at Paul Moore's portfolio...It's f*cking awesome...I listen when he talks

 

It's your choice to whom you would listen to, GV ... I am not a photographer, in fact, I feel embarassed when people treat me as a photographer frequently because I'm not "the" photographer.

 

There were some unpleasant chats involving me and other members in history and some of them would like to carry over, I'd like to take this opportunity to extend my apologies to all, hopefully this would put all to rest.

 

Moderators, please feel free to remove any of my posts if inappropriate.

 

Best to all.

[Gentleman Villain]

It's your choice to whom you would listen to, GV ... I am not a photographer, in fact, I feel embarassed when people treat me as a photographer frequently because I'm not "the" photographer.

 

There were some unpleasant chats involving me and other members in history and some of them would like to carry over, I'd like to take this opportunity to extend my apologies to all, hopefully this would put all to rest.

 

Moderators, please feel free to remove any of my posts if inappropriate.

 

Best to all.

 

Something I've noticed....a lot of times working photographers don't do well in forums. They know how to shoot but don't know how to talk about it...so they'll use the wrong term or something like that...Then the forum gearheads jump down their throat...piss them off...and they leave.

 

In the end...the guys that take pictures of ducks at the pond and little league games tend to run the forums. It just always seems to happen that way...take a stroll through DPreview and it won't take too long to see what I mean.

 

The only reason I'm bringing this up is to try and bridge the lack of communication that often happens between the pros and the gearheads. We need both of them in my opinion....We need the pros out shooting and the gearheads keeping their eyes on what the camera makers are doing. In the words of the immortal Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" LOL

[sdai]

The only reason I'm bringing this up is to try and bridge the lack of communication that often happens between the pros and the gearheads. We need both of them in my opinion....We need the pros out shooting and the gearheads keeping their eyes on what the camera makers are doing. In the words of the immortal Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" LOL

 

Don't mistake ... I have a lot of respect to the pros and each year I spend some money to buy photographs among other things while dreaming that perhaps one day I can do just as good if not better until somebody tells me ... don't waste your time, why repeat the same? try something else and I just couldn't find anything which hasn't been tried before.

 

Thanks a lot for your effort, GV.

 

Best to all!

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Simon the most important part without a doubt is enjoy it , be you are good at it or not if you love it than that is all that counts. As a pro i would never tell someone to bag it and if someone tells you that , well lets just say i would have a few choice words for them. Enjoy what you get out of it and actually YOU are one of the very few that actually admits they are a gear head. Hell be proud of it , nothing wrong with enjoy that part of it. I'm borderline I think, maybe a good swift kick and i would fall off the fence. LOL

 

Heck we all like gear but GV made a good point not all Pro's are good at describing this and we mix words or definitions up sometimes. I know i sure as hell do.

[paulmoore]

It's your choice to whom you would listen to, GV ... I am not a photographer, in fact, I feel embarassed when people treat me as a photographer frequently because I'm not "the" photographer.

 

There were some unpleasant chats involving me and other members in history and some of them would like to carry over, I'd like to take this opportunity to extend my apologies to all, hopefully this would put all to rest.

 

Moderators, please feel free to remove any of my posts if inappropriate.

 

Best to all.

 

I accept your apology from all previous posts - I'm not interested in personal attacks. However you aren't off the hook yet.

I do think I have sufficient knowledge to have a discussion here, despite what you think.

Please enlighten me concerning the resolving power of optics with regards to sensors.

I am ready to learn as most here are. I go out of my way to assume little, I use my experience with the camera and evaluate my results to help define my opinions, but I am at least open to new information.. so bring it on, back up that statement about

how lenses don't need to be as good for larger formats.

I have no problem with armchair whatevers..I am an armchair sailor, hunter and a few other things I wish I had the time to do.. but the danger in sitting in the armchair looking at charts and specs in this arena is that you are mixing with guys like me that have years of practical working experience..and you can't say some generalized sweeping statement like that without some flak..I think your own support of the quality of digital fuji lenses over the older zeiss lenses just backs up my argument..

 

Besides your above mentioned unpleasant posts, I had been reading for the last year working up to photokina how you doubted that leica would have a new camera.. so that added to my distaste reading your "blow your money on the s2 posts"..and general negative and confrontational inputs here. So you are asking for confrontation the way you post and respond..

regardless, again I am willing to learn why you think as you do - spare us the "your knowledge is not sufficient for a discussion at this level" that is a smokescreen

[Gentleman Villain]

until somebody tells me ... don't waste your time, why repeat the same? try something else and I just couldn't find anything which hasn't been tried before

 

I hate it when people say things like that because it demoralizes aspiring photographers.

 

Also, I really hate the term "pro" (even though I use it) because there is a whole lot of fuzzy area for determining what constitutes a pro. Is a pro somebody that makes a living with a camera? If so, then that puts a passport photographer in the same category as Annie Leibovitz. So WTF is a pro anyway? Also, most of the photographers that we consider to be elite are usually only known because of their work in advertising. So ...does that mean someone has to take pictures for Pepsi, Apple computers, Nike or some Hollywood celebrity to be a good photographer? Personally, I have grown to despise advertising enough...that I'd rather work at a bagel shop before taking another photograph used to advertise some crooked wall street BS LOL

 

Maybe it would be nice just to take pictures...for no other reason than just because we like to...and stop worrying about "pro" ...and this and that Ok my rant is almost over...But I'd like to say one thing specifically to Simon...

 

The number one factor I see that separates a "good" photographer from a bad one...Is that the good one has found his personal strengths and concentrates on them while learning to minimize and avoid his weaknesses. When I meet an aspiring photographer that is frustrated with his work....it is usually because he hasn't quite determined what his personal strengths are yet. EVERYBODY has a particular strenght that is unique. It's just a matter of finding it...some people find it right away...others take many years to discover it... A jack of all trades is a master of none. To really be good at something...a photographer has gotta specialize. In order to specialize, a photographer has to figure out his strengths and separate them from his weaknesses. We can't all be experts at everything. Just something to think about.

[sdai]

Please enlighten me concerning the resolving power of optics with regards to sensors...

 

Whether it's with film or a digital sensor, resolution power is in terms of line pairs of per picture height.

 

If you shoot in portrait orientation, the picture height of 645 is 56mm, of Leica S2 is 45mm, of a hypothetical FF R10 it's 36mm.

 

If 70lp/mm is required for a 645 lens to resolve the same amount of detail (line pairs), a Leica S lens would then need (56/45)*70=87lp/mm, a R lens would need (56/36)*70=109lp/mm.

 

If you shoot in landscape orientation, the picture height of 645 is 41.5mm, of Leica S2 is 30mm, of the hypothetical R10 it's 24mm.

 

In this case to resolve the same amount of detail a 70lp/mm 645 lens can do, the S2 lens will need (41.5/30)*70=97lp/mm, a R lens will need to do (41.5/24)*70=121lp/mm.

 

To sum it up, to achieve comparable end results with the same sensor, a S2 lens must have more resolution than a similar 645 lens.

[sdai]

But I'd like to say one thing specifically to Simon...

 

The number one factor I see that separates a "good" photographer from a bad one...Is that the good one has found his personal strengths and concentrates on them while learning to minimize and avoid his weaknesses. When I meet an aspiring photographer that is frustrated with his work....it is usually because he hasn't quite determined what his personal strengths are yet. EVERYBODY has a particular strenght that is unique. It's just a matter of finding it...some people find it right away...others take many years to discover it... A jack of all trades is a master of none. To really be good at something...a photographer has gotta specialize. In order to specialize, a photographer has to figure out his strengths and separate them from his weaknesses. We can't all be experts at everything. Just something to think about.

 

Thanks a lot for your kind words, GV. My work has nothing to do with photography and I normally stay in my office for over 12 hours per day, and I don't go home every night when it's late, my company has some suites booked all year around in a hotel nearby ... which is apparently why I'm wasting so much time on the forums. LOL

 

Over the years I did have tried a lot of things and found my interest is mainly in animals and cars which is why I am not into the S2 ... apparently. LOL

 

I don't put a lot of stuff on the web, 2 pictures ... I'm hoping they're not too bad judged by your standard.

 

 

 

Best to all.

[sdai]

Simon the most important part without a doubt is enjoy it , be you are good at it or not if you love it than that is all that counts. As a pro i would never tell someone to bag it and if someone tells you that , well lets just say i would have a few choice words for them. Enjoy what you get out of it and actually YOU are one of the very few that actually admits they are a gear head. Hell be proud of it , nothing wrong with enjoy that part of it. I'm borderline I think, maybe a good swift kick and i would fall off the fence. LOL.

 

Thanks a lot for your kind words, Guy ... you're absolutely a source of inspiration too. Damn the crazy R stuff! LOL

[mjh]

The fact is, the larger the sensor and greater the megapixel, the greater the need for high resolution lenses.

Sorry, but you’ve got that (partly) wrong. The resolution of the lens as measured in line pairs per millimeter needs to be matched to the pixel density or pixel size. If you increase the number of pixels and leave the sensor size constant, the pixels will be smaller, requiring better lenses. If, on the other hand, you increase the sensor size and leave the number of pixels constant, the pixel size increases, lessening the demands on lens resolution. So there is indeed a need for higher resolution lenses if you increase the megapixel count, but not for a bigger sensor – quite the opposite really.

 

For example, MTF curves for 35 mm lenses generally show the contrast for 15, 30, and 60 Lp/mm. For a medium-format camera with a typical 49.1 x 36.7 mm sensor, the relevant spatial frequencies would be 10, 20, and 40 Lp/mm. If the contrast the medium-format lens delivered at 40 Lp/mm was as good as the contrast the 35 mm lens delivered at 60 Lp/mm, the effective resolution in the eventual image would be the same. But since the medium-format lens will often deliver good contrast even at 60 Lp/mm, the effective resolution will actually be better.

[paulmoore]

Sorry, but you’ve got that (partly) wrong. The resolution of the lens as measured in line pairs per millimeter needs to be matched to the pixel density or pixel size. If you increase the number of pixels and leave the sensor size constant, the pixels will be smaller, requiring better lenses. If, on the other hand, you increase the sensor size and leave the number of pixels constant, the pixel size increases, lessening the demands on lens resolution. So there is indeed a need for higher resolution lenses if you increase the megapixel count, but not for a bigger sensor – quite the opposite really.

 

For example, MTF curves for 35 mm lenses generally show the contrast for 15, 30, and 60 Lp/mm. For a medium-format camera with a typical 49.1 x 36.7 mm sensor, the relevant spatial frequencies would be 10, 20, and 40 Lp/mm. If the contrast the medium-format lens delivered at 40 Lp/mm was as good as the contrast the 35 mm lens delivered at 60 Lp/mm, the effective resolution in the eventual image would be the same. But since the medium-format lens will often deliver good contrast even at 60 Lp/mm, the effective resolution will actually be better.

 

well I stand partly corrected..thanks.. my point was the finer the resolution of the sensor the need for better lenses.. and up til now the move has been for smaller pixels..with finer resolution and the need for better lenses to match.. I would not mind seeing a very large sensor with big fat pixels but I doubt the scientists are working on that one.. as it is there is no need for for anything better than what is or will be on the market in the next year.

it goes back to the car analogy. what are you going to do with a 600hp merc that you can't do with a 300hp one?

I was told by the imacon/hassy guys back in 2003 that I should not use my existing lens due to the sensor would outperform them.. well maybe on paper with formulas, but in practical shooting you don't need perfect, and it is often the imperfections of lenses that make them stand out and give that "look". while I hope leica develops some perfect lenses I wish also for those poor mtfs that are unique and unusually fast.

[Gentleman Villain]

Thanks a lot for your kind words, GV. My work has nothing to do with photography and I normally stay in my office for over 12 hours per day, and I don't go home every night when it's late, my company has some suites booked all year around in a hotel nearby ... which is apparently why I'm wasting so much time on the forums. LOL

 

Excellent! I can always respect a hard working man and it's a great way to earn a leica. The first years of my shooting it was impossible to even consider a leica because I just didn't have the cash flow. So I always envied guys like you that could get the nice gear

 

This may sound kind of obvious...but it might be worth sharing just to help communication with commercial artists and stuff. All of the self-employed photographers that I've known and assisted for were generally not so detail oriented. The tended to look at overall "vibes" and "moods" of things. So a lot times they will convey excellent information based on experience that isn't necessarily technically detailed. Their facts or use of terms might be a little off...but their experience and ability to understand the use of gear within context is usually spot-on. They can often get really offended when challenged over details because they feel it's frivolous in the greater context. I don't know if you've ever run into that before...but just thought it was worth sharing.

 

For example: I spent a lot of years in photography without even knowing what a chromatic aberration was. Nobody ever talked about stuff like that on a set EVER. We just knew certain lenses looked better than others. But the forums are obsessed with charts and diagrams and all of this stuff that is only a tiny part of what is important on a photo set. There is probably a bit of left-brain versus right-brain stuff going on in photography forums and it might account for some of the miscommunication. Commercial Artists will often communicate in more scattered ways than maybe a by-the-book type of businessmen would.

 

Sorry for going off on a tangent...But I can tell you've got a passion for photography...and the enthusiasm rubs off on me a bit...and then I can't shut up LOL

 

Over the years I did have tried a lot of things and found my interest is mainly in animals and cars which is why I am not into the S2 ... apparently. LOL

 

I don't put a lot of stuff on the web, 2 pictures ... I'm hoping they're not too bad judged by your standard.

 

 

Thanks for posting your pics...but I never judge a photographer based on a single image or a handful of images. Anybody can take a good image or two. Instead, I only judge a photographer after reviewing a body of work and finding "themes" and elements to their work that are consistent. That helps me figure out what they are good at...and determine their strengths.

 

My first thought when viewing your two posted photos was that there is the element of striking color. Some people have an "eye" for color and it guides them when choosing subjects matched to backgrounds or the color of the lighting etc. Anyhow, just thought I'd share that those images have vibrant color IMHO

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

... That helps me figure out what they are good at...and determine their strengths.

 

My strength is probably only with the jib jabs on a forum ... that being said, I've always treated photography as a form of self entertainment and I'm quite satisfied with status quo. I never even had a online gallery and similar things so sorry ... as Guy have said, it's all about enjoying, if you let me pull out 100 pictures from my hard drive, they all will probably look the same. Different goals, different priorities ... not everyone who buys a race car needs/wants to run as fast as Schumacher, right? same here.

 

I have rarely looked into any photo forums, the gear talks are the main reasons why I come here and let's get back on topic. LOL

 

Again, thanks a lot and best to all.