Best pseudo-S2?

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK - the S2 is still a year out.

 

Suppose I (or some other photographer) wanted to try my/her hand at some of the studio/fashion/architecture/magazine portrait (read medium-format) genres it seems to be aimed at. You know, just to try to build a "book" of images that need more than 10-12 Mpixels and see if I can?

 

What is the cheapest reasonable way to roughly approximate the "look and feel" of the S2 in both handling and output - i.e NOT getting involved with anything $10,000+

 

I'm thinking a Canon 5D MK2 would be the most direct route to: near-MF IQ, big sensor, 20+ Mpixels, some capability for Leica glass, availability of TS/PC lenses, roughly equivalent form factor (hand-holdable).

 

Sony A900 has the sensor and pixels, but not the extensive pro/studio/field lens range.

 

Let's stick with cameras that actually exist today - waiting for pie in the sky, I can afford to wait for the S2 itself. No Nikon MX or D3x until you can actually link me to one.

 

 

DMR worth thinking about and yes, a 5D Mk II (or 1Ds Mk III) with Zeiss lenses. Two, in EOS mount, have been announced but there will be more.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

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

[charlesphoto99]

DMR worth thinking about and yes, a 5D Mk II (or 1Ds Mk III) with Zeiss lenses. Two, in EOS mount, have been announced but there will be more.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

But keep in mind that no matter how good the resolution gets in 35 digital it's not medium format. To me MF is about the different sense of depth the lenses give the image as well as a different way of working. The resolution can bring it close, but it's not the whole game.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Exactly it is a different look.

[stevelap]

In order to start building a 'fighting fund' for a future S2 purchase, in the current economic climate, I may have to liquidate my existing Leica kit. In that case I might just take my own earlier advice and go for a used 1DsII in the interim.

[wattsy]

But keep in mind that no matter how good the resolution gets in 35 digital it's not medium format. To me MF is about the different sense of depth the lenses give the image as well as a different way of working. The resolution can bring it close, but it's not the whole game.

 

Yes, indeed - you've saved me making this very point. There is something rather beautiful about 'real' medium format like 6x7 and, of course, even larger formats that has absolutely nothing to do with resolution nor, indeed, tonal quality. It presumably comes from having to use longer focal lengths (than you would with 35mm or 645) to get a given field of view and I just don't see how it can be replicated using a smaller format - no matter how good the resolving power of the lens or sensor/film is.

[sean_reid]

But keep in mind that no matter how good the resolution gets in 35 digital it's not medium format. To me MF is about the different sense of depth the lenses give the image as well as a different way of working. The resolution can bring it close, but it's not the whole game.

 

Yes, of course. Since the S2 falls somewhat between the size of a 35 mm camera and, say, a 6 x 7, one could approximate up or down to choose a camera that "approximates" the S2. Of course, once we see actual S2 output, we'll know more about what most approximates it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, indeed - you've saved me making this very point. There is something rather beautiful about 'real' medium format like 6x7 and, of course, even larger formats that has absolutely nothing to do with resolution nor, indeed, tonal quality. It presumably comes from having to use longer focal lengths (than you would with 35mm or 645) to get a given field of view and I just don't see how it can be replicated using a smaller format - no matter how good the resolving power of the lens or sensor/film is.

 

I can't imagine that anyone would disagree on this point.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[mtomalty]

"Since the S2 falls somewhat between the size of a 35 mm camera and, say, a 6 x 7,"

 

I believe the S2 will fall much closer to the 35mm 'look' knowing that the sensor is only

50% larger that the 35mm format. The S2 sensor is also half the size of the 6x 4.5 format

which is the point many,I would guess, say that medium format 'begins'.

Also the 2 x 3 aspect ratio of the S2 sensor will be much more in keeping with the

feel of the 24 x 36 format vs. the 3x4 ratio of most digital backs.

With this in mind I think a 5D Mkll should be a useful and economical way to get a

'feel' of what a higher Mpix capture might deliver once the S2 ships.

 

Mark

[carstenw]

The standard "645" digital sensors are not 6x4.5 any more, but 36x48mm. The S2 is 30x45mm, a difference of just 28%. And that is only for the larger sensors. There are also sensors in MF which are smaller, like many 31MP sensors, at 44x33mm, or just 7.5% larger, and this is at the moment the price sweet point, so many people are buying this. There are even 37x37mm sensors, which are *smaller* than the S2's. Imagine buying a full 6x6cm MF system, like the Hy6 or 6008* or Hasselblad V system, not to mention RB/RZ67 or view cameras, and then using such a tiny sensor? The S2 makes much more sense in this case. It has several advantages, including both leaf and focal plane shutters, smaller lenses, lenses by Leica (!), easier handling, and so on. To get 4:3 with the S2, you just crop the edges, losing less than 10%, quite acceptable, especially since the resolution is so high.

 

So you see, the S2 is *much* closer to MF than to 35mm FF. And if you think that the 5D2 will give you anything like the MF look, just look at 100% crops of two raw files, and you will give up that idea. MF photographers take their pixels seriously, not like Canon or Nikon.

[stevelap]

.....So you see, the S2 is *much* closer to MF than to 35mm FF. And if you think that the 5D2 will give you anything like the MF look, just look at 100% crops of two raw files, and you will give up that idea. MF photographers take their pixels seriously, not like Canon or Nikon.

 

A good analysis, and I certainly agree with you Carsten.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

The S2 is more MF than anything. What will be interesting to see though when compared to a bigger MF sensor and we will see this since 70mm is normal for the S2 and 80 mm is normal for the MF we will see a slight DOF difference given the same equivalent focal length. The S2 will have slightly more DOF but it will be pretty slight and just may not notice it very much at all. Also will be interesting to see the aperture blades of the leica glass and how they will render bokeh. My one slight fear in the leica glass is will it be too sterile looking, as we know some old M lenses like a 75mm lux gives a nice look that has more mojo than some others for example. This maybe one issue coming out with all new glass is the mojo may suffer. Obviously we will have to see, but shooting bigger sensors does give a different look anyway when it comes to look. So maybe there will be a good balance , just have to see how that works out. I still think a 130mm or 140mm f2 lens is needed though and obviously i am pushing for it. LOL

[AlanG]

The standard "645" digital sensors are not 6x4.5 any more, but 36x48mm. The S2 is 30x45mm, a difference of just 28%. And that is only for the larger sensors. There are also sensors in MF which are smaller, like many 31MP sensors, at 44x33mm, or just 7.5% larger, and this is at the moment the price sweet point, so many people are buying this. There are even 37x37mm sensors, which are *smaller* than the S2's. Imagine buying a full 6x6cm MF system, like the Hy6 or 6008* or Hasselblad V system, not to mention RB/RZ67 or view cameras, and then using such a tiny sensor? The S2 makes much more sense in this case. It has several advantages, including both leaf and focal plane shutters, smaller lenses, lenses by Leica (!), easier handling, and so on. To get 4:3 with the S2, you just crop the edges, losing less than 10%, quite acceptable, especially since the resolution is so high.

 

So you see, the S2 is *much* closer to MF than to 35mm FF. And if you think that the 5D2 will give you anything like the MF look, just look at 100% crops of two raw files, and you will give up that idea. MF photographers take their pixels seriously, not like Canon or Nikon.

 

There is an advantage of the Hy6 and AFi-II being 6x6. It allows for future sensor size expansion. And the newest Leaf back will automatically rotate the sensor between vertical and horizontal formats. The sensor is 56x36mm in this Leaf back which makes pretty good use of the lenses. (6x6 format actually is about 56mm x 56mm) So 56x36 is about 1.5 times the area of 30x45. And it has 56 megapixels compared with the S2s 37. And while backs with these large sensors may be very expensive today, before long they may be much cheaper. By not having a removable/upgradeable back, the S2 is really placing a major limitation on the system.

 

From my perspective, the best advantage the S2 has over the Hy6/AFi-II system is the 24mm and 30mm TS lenses. That system is limited for wide angle use. But keep in mind that it has very advanced leaf shutters and high flash sync. And Hasselblad has a 28mm which I guess is about the same as the Leica 24 when it is used on 36x48. But consider that the back that is used on an MF can be used on a specialized wide angle camera and that 30mm TS advantage loses some significance. And that same back can be used on a view camera for even more movement and versatility.

 

While I find the idea of a 24 and 30TS very appealing, I think it would be difficult to justify the limitations of a fixed back to have them. And what are these lenses going to cost anyway? 20 years ago the Schneider 55mm PC lens for the Rollei was around $7,000 -$11,000. So even though I had the Rollei system, I didn't buy one.

 

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 used to regularly shoot the same images with both formats.) If you look through my website, I have images that were shot with all kinds of cameras from a 2 megapixel p&s to 4x5 scanned film. On a website, I can't see much difference. When you blow up the images, there may be differences in resolution but not in the "look." And I take my pixels seriously, whatever that means.

 

As for the S2 having lenses made by Leica, is there some kind of assumption that images made with these lenses will be better than those made with other MF cameras? Why? I assume the lenses will be very good but I bet that Leica is not even making the lenses themselves. They do not say that in the S2 promotional video and I don't recall any anouncement stating the lenses are actually made by Leica. Only that the system was developed from scratch by Leica and was designed and manufactured in Germany. Designed and manufactured by whom?

[stevelap]

....I assume the lenses will be very good but I bet that Leica is not even making the lenses themselves. They do not say that in the S2 promotional video and I don't recall any anouncement stating the lenses are actually made by Leica. Only that the system was developed from scratch by Leica and was designed and manufactured in Germany. Designed and manufactured by whom?

 

Not quite sure where you're going with this Alan, are you trying to start a conspiracy theory;) .

 

In the Imaging Resources photokina video interview with Christian Erhardt and Justin Stailey Imaging Resource: Photokina 2008 Live Tradeshow Coverage - Video Clips, Justin uses the words "built and designed by Leica in Solms" when asked about the S2 system.

David Farkas, who had a long talk with Peter Karbe at photokina, also mentions in his blog David Farkas Photography Blog that "word is that Peter Karbe (head optics designer at Leica) has been very hard at work" with S2 lens design.

In Mark Norton's 'Leica's New Home' thread http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/63879-leica-s-new-home.html he mentions two other companies, both in Dr Kaufmann's portfolio, that are shown on the site board at Leitz-Park Wetzlar. Weller, who make lens barrels and ViaOptic.

 

If that all pans out I think "built and designed by Leica" would be pretty accurate.

[AlanG]

If that all pans out I think "built and designed by Leica" would be pretty accurate.

 

It could be true that the body and lenses are built and designed by Leica. But that is not what they say on the video. The exact quote from Maike Harberts is, "Developed by Leica from scratch. Designed and produced in Germany." In my critical thinking, that gives the impression that Leica is doing it all in house, but actually leaves an out. Just as there are a lot of current and older lenses that say Zeiss and Leica on them that were made by outside contractors.

 

I am not making any conspiracy theory and I assume that the camera and lenses are first rate regardless of whether Leica or another German company made them. But one cannot simply assume that just because the S2 uses Leica lenses that it will be capable of producing better images than other MF cameras can produce. Especially ones using Schneider glass and a 56x36 56 megapixel Leaf back.

 

Now I will get into my opinion with the acknowledgment that I could be completely wrong. All Leica has to do is say that they designed and are producing the S2 and lenses in house. I have a hard time understanding how Leica on its own could rapidly develop and produce the S2 and these new lenses considering the small size of the company, its lack of history making larger than 35mm gear, and all of the other new M lenses they've introduced recently. And I don't think the S2 was in the works for several years as the sensor and processing technology that makes it possible seems pretty new.

 

Add to that how a company with no significant background in medium format lenses, auto focus, electronic leaf shutters, could start manufacturing all of this so quickly seems like a stretch to me. However F&H, Schneider, Sinar, and Zeiss have a lot of this technology. Perhaps other German companies have it too. Consider that Leica used Schneider PC lenses on the R. Yet now we're to believe that they can design and manufacture a 30mm TS lens for the S2 format. Where did they get the resources to do this?

 

My hat is off to Leica if they really did all of this themselves. But I don't have any less respect for them if they conceptualized the S2 and then had others produce it. We know for sure that the sensor came form Kodak, the processor from Fujitsu. I'd think the AF technology and leaf shutters would have to come from outside suppliers as well. And if they went to Seiko for the shutter for the M8, how is it that they now can make a larger electronically controlled focal plane shutter? It isn't like the old days when everything in a camera was built in house. As a matter of fact, long ago, Leica used to contract with Linhof for some things - parts or all of the 4x5 Aristophot micro/macro cameras for instance. Mine said Leica on the outside but was also clearly marked "Linhof" on the back. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Alan, Dr Kaufman owns several companies right there in Germany that do support leica products. The have one of his mill shops make the barrels for a lot of the M lenses and such. Coding for M lenses went to one of his companies right there is Germany . So it may not be exactly made in one building per say but they are owned by him and his parent company(name ?). I can assure you though the glass is being produced right there in the Leica factory , no one can do this very easily and they have all the equipment on site and honestly i watched them polish glass and assemble right there on the Solms tour. Part of the factory the public is not allowed and that is the coatings and such because fear of contamination and such. Now this could have changed since I was there but i doubt it very highly they make glass and that is there thing after that who knows. Let's assume and it maybe a great assumption that some electronics are made elsewhere obviously the sensor is Kodak but this maybe put together either by Kodak, Leica or Jenoptik and /or a combination of any or all of them. The body maybe made in Portugal like the M8 body is made there, since it is magnesium they need a special facility just for that. I would assume that some things are made outside the factory walls like the LCD for example maybe coming from Japan or another German company. As we know this is very normal on a production level. Some things usually are farmed out for many companies. But I think a real safe bet the glass is made right there in Solms.We have to remember also they make glass for the Sport optics as well and they made glass for the R system . So making a med format lens can be done there as well. Just my take on this and from what I understand but obviously until Leica say so exactly than all bets are off and we may never know everything for sure.

[dfarkas]

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

[mtomalty]

And if you think that the 5D2 will give you anything like the MF look, just look at 100% crops of two raw files, and you will give up that idea. MF photographers take their pixels seriously, not like Canon or Nikon.

 

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

[mtomalty]

Very informative,David. Thanks.

With all that said where,exactly, does PhaseOne fit in?

Are they only to be a supplier of bundled processing software or does their

involvement go deeper?

 

Leica definitely has developed an exciting product and,as you suggest, credit is

certainly due.

 

Let's all hope the economy doesn't completely tank, as some experts are forecasting,

so that Leica doesn't have to battle the economy as well as competing brands

 

 

Mark

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

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.

[adan]

20 working cameras - and 20 working lenses (maybe) - all 75mm. Dave says these are hand-machined prototypes (or maybe he meant the lenses) but in any case I'd guess Leica wants to:

 

>> build up the stable of lenses (since unlike the DMR and M8 there is not a 40-50 year supply of lenses already "out there" to use);

 

>> do real beta-testing of both the lenses and cameras, and also the firmware;

 

>> and finally just be ready for market before opening the doors to buyers.

 

 

BTW thanks for the discussion. I'm primarily thinking of commercial work in this context where everything is sharp, so the relative difference between "35mm" and "real MF" softness is not a big issue.