Best pseudo-S2?

[stevelap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let me put this one to rest.

 

Leica designed the S lenses in house, no help. They have their own prototyping shop in Solms. So, the first batch of prototypes was machined there as well. Weller does do production machining, and will most likely do the milling. Yes, Weller is moving to the under-construction Leitz Park to be closer to Leica. Yes, Weller is owned by ACM, which is Kaufmann's holding company. ViaOptic is also owned by ACM, but makes polymer-based lenses for industrial use, and as such has no involment in the photo end (as of right now).

 

The glass in Leica lenses (over 200 different forumulas in today's lenses) is made by Schott, Hoya, and Corning, depending on the formula and spec. Many of these formulas were developed by Leica in the Leitz Glass Works in Wetzlar. All of the grinding, polishing and multi-coating for M, R, and S lenses is done at the Leica factory, 100%. Assembly, testing, and packaging all take place there also. And, according to Peter Karbe, the S lenses are the absolute cutting edge of optical design. Compared to most of the existing "classic design" MF glass, these new lenses will be clearly superior.

 

The main circuit board in the S2 is actually made by Leica as well, which surprised me. Of course, the Maestro is made by Fujitsu, exlusively for Leica and the KAF37500 CCD is made by Kodak, again exclusively for Leica. In both cases, Leica took a very active role in the development of these products.

 

The S2 project has been underway for about 1.5 to 2 years depending on who's telling the story. Kaufmann has hired a lot of new talent to make this project happen. 15 software engineers just for the S2, along with new optics designers, mechanical engineers, and industrial designers. The optics department at Leica has grown tremendously over the last year.

 

I was totally blown away by Leica's accomplishment on the S2 system. I had no idea that a working camera would be shown, let alone 20 of them, or that they would have 4 lenses fully designed from the get-go with 5 more on the way. I'm telling you, this is a whole new Leica. No more small company with lumbering development. As Maike put it to me, "we are in the left lane of the Autobahn...full speed ahead!"

 

So, let's put the skeptism aside. They really did do it themselves. Give credit where credit is due.

 

David

 

Thanks for the update David. I agree, Leica do indeed deserve full credit for this in my opinion and I'm happy to believe them, until proven otherwise, and hope that the camera can be delivered as promised, or better.

[Advertisement]

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

[carstenw]

Carsten

 

I use digital backs weekly and can assure you I know the difference.

 

The original poster was asking for suggestions on how to economically get a feel

for MF. The 5D Mkll will give him a relatively high pixel count in a format that is the

same aspect ratio as the eventual S2. Nobody suggests that the file from a

35mm DSLR is on par with a MFDB.

 

Your last sentence should also include Leica as a non-serious brand as the difference

in an M8 or DMR is equally laughable when compared to any current digital back

on the market

Not at all. I am talking about two things: 1) the nonsensical AA filters on high-end DSLRs (consumers may prefer them, since you don't have to deal with moire that way, but what a stupid way to throw away resolution), and 2) the horrible lens lineups that especially Canon, but also Nikon offer (with a few gems thrown in to confuse matters), making it impossible to even get a sharp image to the sensor.

 

Getting a 5D2 to get the feel for medium format is a truly bizarre notion, IMO.

[wildlightphoto]

There's one thing I don't understand ... if there're at least 20 working cameras now, why do they have to wait till next summer? that sounds like left lane in UK or Japan.

 

The 20 working cameras were made as prototypes. Production cameras are made more efficiently and economically, but require significant investment in production equipment. As I read it the production tooling is not in place yet.

[sdai]

The 20 working cameras were made as prototypes. Production cameras are made more efficiently and economically, but require significant investment in production equipment. As I read it the production tooling is not in place yet.

 

Possibly. I only wish they could get the S2 done ASAP and continue to work on the R10.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Bad news is i am getting a little anxious to see a S2. That is not good news for my wallet:D

[sean_reid]

In the end, we're going to need to see results from a production camera to know just how the S2 fits into the existing landscape. Clearly, it seems very promising. That said, I think that a 5D II and Zeiss lenses is, in the near future, going to be one of the most cost-effective means available for high resolution work. It is not digital MF, of course, but still very capable. The combinations of 1Ds III and Zeiss lenses that I'm testing now are pretty impressive. So, if cost plays a role for anyone in all of this...

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As for the different "look" between 35mm, MF, and others, I think that mostly has to do with depth of field and film grain, combined with working apprach. There is no reason a photo taken with a 35mm camera can't look exactly the same as one taken with a 4x5 camera.

 

I'm surprised you think this. Even stopped down I think there is a difference in the look between smaller and larger formats but when used wide or near wide-open I don't think the look can be exactly replicated by the smaller format at all.

[charlesphoto99]

I'm surprised you think this. Even stopped down I think there is a difference in the look between smaller and larger formats but when used wide or near wide-open I don't think the look can be exactly replicated by the smaller format at all.

 

My thoughts exactly. Esp. with film MF. the problem with digital MF is the crop factor therefore forcing one to use lenses with less depth and the look then being closer to 35.

 

The NY Times had a photo essay the other day in the Sports section on Olympic athletes in their spare time. Even printed in b&w on newsprint, most images 1/4 to 1/8 page, I could tell they were done with 6X7 film. MF cameras just have a different character. Part of it is also the way one shoots. And even among cameras - I shoot differently with my Rollei TLR than I do with my Mamiya 7. I also shoot differently with my M8 than I do with my Nikon D3.

[AlanG]

I'm surprised you think this. Even stopped down I think there is a difference in the look between smaller and larger formats but when used wide or near wide-open I don't think the look can be exactly replicated by the smaller format at all.

 

I usually shot 4x5 at f16-f22 and 6x9 at f16 for interiors. I have never shot with any large format lens wide open as most only give their maximum image circle between f16-f22.

 

Just to give you some background of my experience, I started shooting 4x5 my first year as a student in 1970. I bought a Hasselblad, 150, 80, and 50 when I was 19. I shot the majority of my jobs on 4x5, 6x9, and 6x6 format from that time until 5 years ago when I bought a 1Ds. Prior to going digital, I used 35mm film for stock, some personal work, and when that format was required. So until recently I looked at myself as an LF and MF photographer.

 

The 6x6 lenses I had were not exactly speed demons so using them wide open doesn't give very shallow depth of field. My Hassy and then Rollei 150 could be used for portraits at its maximum aperture of f4 but was hard to focus accurately this way. The 250 and 350 were f5.6. A Canon 135 f2 will have much less depth of field. There are some MF portrait lenses that are f2.8. However, I am not one that is so enamored with narrow depth of field. I know some people who use 150 f2.8 Xenons on 4x5 for a special look.

 

So of course one can find certain examples where they might be able to get a different look between one camera and another. But I don't think you'll see it when stopped down and using the camera in a static way. For that matter, you could shoot portraits wide open with an 85mm TSE lens and use the tilt to give a really unique look. But when I've shot the same image stopped down, using a tripod with a 4x5 and a 35mm, I didn't see a difference in look as long as I could match the field of view. (This was a very typical procedure for me as many projects needed to be on 4x5 and 35mm.)

 

Of course it was always easier to get more depth of field on 35mm so often the 35mm digital images look sharper overall than the 4x5 images. (Sometimes I can't stop down as far as I'd like on LF.) What often happens when using LF or MF is that one's working approach is much different and more controled and locked down so this may lead to a different look that is not due to the camera itself.

 

All I can say is that I have the same images shot on 35mm and 4x5 and once scanned, I can't see any difference except film grain and detail. Now that 35mm digital has no grain and more resolution than 35mm film I see little difference between what I now shoot on 35mm digital when compared to what I used to shoot on 6x9 film. I used to shoot all of my interiors on 4x5 or 6x9 film. I typically used a 35mm Apo Grandagon, 47mm XL Super Angulon, and other focal length SA lenses. And now I shoot them with a 16-35, 24 TSE and other lenses. I can't say that they now have a different "look" other than cleaner color, and fewer problems with the digital images. (No distortion, c/a, vignetting etc. due to DXO.) Large format wide angles are notorious for vignetting and require center filters.

 

If you think about it, what technical imaging factors do you have when using a camera? Angle of view, depth of field, resolution, color quality, dynamic range. While some of these are typically better or different on MF, there is nothing that says this will always give a significantly different look on a given image when printed at a reasonable size.

[delander †]

Let me put this one to rest.

 

 

 

… The main circuit board in the S2 is actually made by Leica as well, which surprised me ….

 

David

 

That I very much doubt. Imagine the reaction here if a PC fabricator suddenly started producing camera lenses.

 

Can Leica fabricate circuit boards? Do they have imaging, plating, laminating, CA component mounting, solder reflowing, solder masking, testing etc. When did they acquire all the tooling, machinery, know-how to do this? Do they have all this stuff just for a circuit board in the S2, in which case it is going to be an unbelievably expensive camera. Economically it makes absolutely no sense. Why would they even think about?

 

I think they are really stretching the meaning of 'made by Leica'.

 

Jeff

[stevelap]

The (probable) ten-month wait for S2 is already starting to frustrate....

 

If I want a dslr and I want to try high resolution again (yes, I know, mpx aren't everything), and I also want a camera that I can take out and about more easily than an MF outfit. Then the S2 (assuming for the moment that IQ, build, reliability and support will all be there) should be just the ticket, albeit at a (no doubt considerable) cost.

 

For the time being though the choices are limited. The rumoured Nikon hi-res development of the D3/D700 (assume D3x/D800? for now) are not yet confirmed, so are unlikely to be available before Q1 2009 at the earliest, and I'm ignoring Sony for the moment. Which leaves Canon, with the 1DsMk III and recently announced 5DMk II (has anyone seen an independent review yet?), as the only hi-res/FF option for a (new) 2008 purchase.

 

Apart from Leica I've mainly been a Nikon user, but given the likely wait for the D3x, yet alone the S2, that may have to change if I want a camera in the short to medium term.....decisions, decisions;)

 

Come on Leica, help me out:) .

[Gentleman Villain]

In the end, we're going to need to see results from a production camera to know just how the S2 fits into the existing landscape. Clearly, it seems very promising. That said, I think that a 5D II and Zeiss lenses is, in the near future, going to be one of the most cost-effective means available for high resolution work. It is not digital MF, of course, but still very capable. The combinations of 1Ds III and Zeiss lenses that I'm testing now are pretty impressive. So, if cost plays a role for anyone in all of this...

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I completely agree with you and just thought it might be worth sharing my experience. I've got the entire lineup of Zeiss lenses for F mount (except the 2 new wide angles) and have been using them on Canon (with novoflex adapters) and Fuji bodies for over a year. You're totally correct that this is a very clean setup for a limited budget.

 

My final impressions on the use of this setup can be summarized pretty easily... it's just too contrasty.

 

Zeiss lenses are well known for being contrasty. The contrast of the Zeiss combined with what I consider to be the limited dynamic range of Canon left me always fighting to get what I considered to be a pleasing contrast. This was especially frustrating when photographing portraits of people with less than perfect skin. I've tried every trick in PP that I can think of but still can't be satisfied. I'm convinced the problem I'm having is the combination of Zeiss plus Canon CMOS. I've also tried experimenting with the Fuji S5 (because it's well known for extended dynamic range and beautiful skin tones) and had much better results with it's CCD sensor. But the lowly 6mp of the Fuji makes it impractical to use professionally. I'm not a real tech-guy or a gearhead, but this is just my personal experience with my particular camera setup. Others will certainly have different experiences and should take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

 

The journey I took with Zeiss on Canon/Fuji is probably what drives my interest in the S2. You're probably 1000% correct in thinking that Zeiss on Canon might be a poor man's S2...because that is exactly my demographic :-)

 

Prior to the public announcement of the S2, I had been contemplating a switch to Alpa or Hasselblad. Alpa is intriguing but probably just too slow for my workflow. And I've always hesitated about Hasselblad because of the need for software to correct lens problems. So the S2 is sounding like my dream camera. The well known pleasing contrast of Leica glass combined with high resolution CCD is what really sells me. And I don't really care what it costs...I'm at the point where I might be willing to sell a kidney haha

 

Anyhow...just sharing some thoughts from my limited experience

[wildlightphoto]

The well known pleasing contrast of Leica glass combined with high resolution CCD is what really sells me.

 

Don't forget bit depth. Leica has shown what kind of dynamic range is possible with the 16-bit CCD in the DMR, vs. the lower bit depth Canon CMOS sensors.

[AlanG]

 

Zeiss lenses are well known for being contrasty. The contrast of the Zeiss combined with what I consider to be the limited dynamic range of Canon left me always fighting to get what I considered to be a pleasing contrast...

 

I don't know what kind of problem you may be having but I don't think it is dynamic range. Skin tones, in anything but the most extreme lighting, have a pretty low dynamic range. And just because one camera captures in 16 bit and another captures in 12 or 14 bit does not mean that the 16 bit captures have a greater dynamic range. 12 bit capture is capable of recording very nice skin tones - and you can only output 8 bits on screen or with most printers. So unless you are doing pretty strong adjustments to exposure, curves or color after capture, higher bit depth won't help you at all.

 

I suggest you consider looking at your raw processing technique first. If you'd like, send me one of your raw files along with a small jpeg of how you converted it, and I'll see if I can do better. Less than perfect skin is always going to be a problem with any camera that takes sharp photos unless you use very soft lighting, a diffusion filter, make-up, and/or retouching. The way you do raw conversions can make a difference here too. If anything, I'd expect the S2 and any other MF camera to more faithfully record the skin flaws. Why do you think Hassy portrait shooters often used Softar filters? (First you spend thousands on a sharp lens, then even more on an MF back, next you spend a few hundred to blur the image slightly.)

 

If you use a pc, you might want to try this free software:

 

CleanSkinFX

 

If it is too extreme for you, try localized or partial blending of the airbrushed result as a layer over the the original.

 

I think there are other similar programs out there too.

[peterv]

Hi Alan,

 

I agree that sharp lenses can be a big problem for people's faces, especially women.

I remenber from my days as a filmcameraman how difficult it was to have to use soft filters for close ups and keep them matching with medium and long shots, where you want, need, sharpness.

 

On the subject of dynamic range:

 

How many stops do you think a, say 39 MP Hassy, can handle? And what should the S2 be capable of to compete with other MF camera systems?

[wildlightphoto]

And just because one camera captures in 16 bit and another captures in 12 or 14 bit does not mean that the 16 bit captures have a greater dynamic range...

 

True, but the greater bit depth allows smoother gradation with the same dynamic range, or the same gradation with greater dynamic range, or some combination of the two. Those who have used both the 5D and DMR report empirical results that substantiate the theory, particularly when pulling detail out of the shadow areas. With the DMR there's detail where the 5D's files begin to look like cheesecloth stretched too much.

[carstenw]

The relatively current MF backs all claim to handle 12-12.5 stops, with the ZD perhaps coming in a little lower.

[AlanG]

True, but the greater bit depth allows smoother gradation with the same dynamic range, or the same gradation with greater dynamic range, or some combination of the two. Those who have used both the 5D and DMR report empirical results that substantiate the theory, particularly when pulling detail out of the shadow areas. With the DMR there's detail where the 5D's files begin to look like cheesecloth stretched too much.

 

I thought we were talking about a properly exposed portrait. Why the tangent?

 

If you were shooting portraits that have a low dynamic range, the ideal camera would be one that captures a low dynamic range of maybe only around 5 or 6 stops with the greatest bit depth. That way you'd have the smoothest tones but it would be overkill for 8 bit output plus there is only so much subtlety that we can detect.

 

I think there is sometimes the temptation to think that a different camera will give better results when the real issue may lie elsewhere.

 

This bit depth concern is probably irrelevant as the 5DII is 14 bits which should be plenty for most people.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

This bit depth concern is probably irrelevant as the 5DII is 14 bits which should be plenty for most people.

 

We still haven't seen an objective test of the 5D Mk II. I wonder why Canon would change from 12 to 14 bits CMOS and announce a goal of eventually migrating to 16-bit sensors if it doesn't make a difference?

[sdai]

Canon has never said that they'll move to 16 bit ... somebody made it up.

 

If people couldn't tell any difference between a 8 bit DNG and a 16 bit DNG (according to Leica), how big the fuss is between 14 bit and 16 bit?