I want an S2...Anybody else gonna buy one?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lets try that again here. Not working sorry but I did load them on my site if you want to look

Guy Mancuso - GetDPI Image Gallery

[Advertisement]

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

[Gentleman Villain]

Guy...I agree with everything that you wrote. Also, thanks very much for posting the images...

 

I consider digital 35mm to be a hopeless format.

 

Back in the film days, my first camera was a 4x5 and my second camera was a 2 1/4. I absolutely hated the 35mm format because it was always a compromise between resolution and speed. But image quality of 35mm was usually pretty good because we had lots of choices available in film type and processing methods. But there was a hopeless compromise between speed and resolution that never improved. It was always a compromise...so the format was kind of hopeless to me.

 

As we began to enter the digital era... I foresaw that the 35mm was becoming a more viable professional format in terms of resolution. There seemed to be a future promise that 35mm could yield both speed and resolution. But I didn't think much about image quality because that was never an issue during the film days.

 

My prediction has largely come true. 35mm has remained a very high speed format and while simultaneously delivering high resolution files in the 20+ range. BUT, I have found something unexpected that didn't exist in the film days...35mm manufacturers have had to make compromise between image quality and resolution.

 

Basically I view 35mm like this:

 

1) In the film era, 35mm was always a compromise between speed and resolution.

2) In the digital era, 35mm is always a compromise between resolution and image quality.

 

Digital 35mm manufacturers are always forced by their customer base to compromise image quality for higher resolution. So 35mm is becoming a hopeless format for people that desire image quality. The market has forced image quality to always be subservient to resolution.

 

There are some 35mm camera makers that have attempted to maintain image quality, resolution and speed. But the costs become very steep....and in the end...I often find diminishing returns for the money. It's often better just to purchase an entry level digital mamiya system than "hot rod" a digital 35 system.

 

For example, an updated digital R system sounds great...But the money would probably be better served towards a Hasselblad or a mamiya. There are going to be diminishing returns to spending a fortune on a hot-rodded 35mm system. I'd probably be just as happy with an entry level digital medium format system + mediocre glass than a top-of-the-line hot-rodded 35mm digital system.

 

Just some thoughts. The S2 seems like a perfect system to me...I'm very hopeful about it...

[paulmoore]

Guy...I agree with everything that you wrote. Also, thanks very much for posting the images...

 

I consider digital 35mm to be a hopeless format.

 

Back in the film days, my first camera was a 4x5 and my second camera was a 2 1/4. I absolutely hated the 35mm format because it was always a compromise between resolution and speed. But image quality of 35mm was usually pretty good because we had lots of choices available in film type and processing methods. But there was a hopeless compromise between speed and resolution that never improved. It was always a compromise...so the format was kind of hopeless to me.

 

As we began to enter the digital era... I foresaw that the 35mm was becoming a more viable professional format in terms of resolution. There seemed to be a future promise that 35mm could yield both speed and resolution. But I didn't think much about image quality because that was never an issue during the film days.

 

My prediction has largely come true. 35mm has remained a very high speed format and while simultaneously delivering high resolution files in the 20+ range. BUT, I have found something unexpected that didn't exist in the film days...35mm manufacturers have had to make compromise between image quality and resolution.

 

Basically I view 35mm like this:

 

1) In the film era, 35mm was always a compromise between speed and resolution.

2) In the digital era, 35mm is always a compromise between resolution and image quality.

 

Digital 35mm manufacturers are always forced by their customer base to compromise image quality for higher resolution. So 35mm is becoming a hopeless format for people that desire image quality. The market has forced image quality to always be subservient to resolution.

 

There are some 35mm camera makers that have attempted to maintain image quality, resolution and speed. But the costs become very steep....and in the end...I often find diminishing returns for the money. It's often better just to purchase an entry level digital mamiya system than "hot rod" a digital 35 system.

 

For example, an updated digital R system sounds great...But the money would probably be better served towards a Hasselblad or a mamiya. There are going to be diminishing returns to spending a fortune on a hot-rodded 35mm system. I'd probably be just as happy with an entry level digital medium format system + mediocre glass than a top-of-the-line hot-rodded 35mm digital system.

 

Just some thoughts. The S2 seems like a perfect system to me...I'm very hopeful about it...

 

I have to disagree with this hopeless statement.. comeon have you seen the files from the lowly a900 sony? digital 35 is just getting better and cheaper.. period

it is better than a hasselblad loaded with film..

I too shot very little 35 film as it was just not up to the commerical needs I had.. but everything has shifted down.. your largeformat film is now mfdb.. and 120 film is ff35digital..

where does this leave the S2? I feel it is a true mf camera with the ergonomics of the smaller 35mm size dslrs. if you don't need viewcamera movements the files from it should be good for almost everything in the commercial print world.. there will always be guys who want the ultimate.. so get yourself a mfdb multishot..or the 65+ phaseone..

at this point in time if I could bankroll it for 2009 I would have the S2 and the 65+ on a viewcamera.. do I need all that resolution.. no, but the large sensor for dof is nice.. also the option of shooting @15mp ..

I really wish leica would bring out a new version of bellows with t/s and a apo 90-150 zoom made for it.. all these manufactures just play kissup to the fashion/people/architecture shooters, not a new story but a lot of us still life guys are still trying to jerryrig 30 year old technika lenses with compur shutters to mfdbs.. nobody is building a new modular technical view camera system..with modern lenses.. sorry but a 100mm f 5.6 is not what I want to shoot with.

[georg]

I think what he is trying to say is that 35mm is compromising itself because most manufacturers can't decide whether they want a "high-speed press-system" or a "fine-art-system".

The Canon 1dMkIII is a perfect example, it's the perfect press tool, the resolution is high enough for this purpose, it's rugged, high-speed and even the crop-factor is ideal for long distances while most lenses can handle the sensor.

The 1ds MkIII is different, it looks and handles like a press camera but the resolution is extremely high and you need very special lenses to truly use this quality in real world. While it is nice that this camera can shoot several frames per second, most "fine-art" photographers are looking for better manual handling (controls, viewfinder, focus) and better lenses while shooting landscapes on a tripod :-)

 

Maybe 35mm is the perfect format because it can fulfill the wishes of both markets to a certain degree or maybe the press will switch to smaller systems with "longer", faster and compact lenses while the "fine art photographers" use formats bigger than 35mm?

 

Right now, both worlds have unnecessary disadvantages but specialized systems to certain sensor format (like the S-System) will propably change that.

 

Am I right?

[AlanG]

...Maybe 35mm is the perfect format because it can fulfill the wishes of both markets to a certain degree or maybe the press will switch to smaller systems with "longer", faster and compact lenses while the "fine art photographers" use formats bigger than 35mm?

 

Right now, both worlds have unnecessary disadvantages but specialized systems to certain sensor format (like the S-System) will probably change that.

 

Am I right?

 

A couple of days ago, a man called trying to sell me an MF system. I told him I wasn't interested and here's why: What I have found, is that for architectural and other projects that have no motion, 35mm images can be stitched for both higher quality and a wider perspective than you can get any other way. This sample was made with a 12 megapixel camera but will be even better with the newer 21mega pixel cameras.

 

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com/Posts/stitching.jpg

[sdai]

What I have found, is that for architectural and other projects that have no motion, 35mm images can be stitched for both higher quality and a wider perspective than you can get any other way. This sample was made with a 12 megapixel camera but will be even better with the newer 21mega pixel cameras.

 

That's very true ... which is like running a scanning back for large format capture.

 

Here's one posted on RG's web site back in 2006, a 8.6 gigapixels stitch of an Italian fresco. I've no idea what MF or even LF system can handle that in one shot.

 

Rob Galbraith DPI: 8.6 gigapixel stitched photograph of Italian fresco revealed

[georg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's cool but not for every purpose of course ;-)

 

You need this baby:

ALPA of Switzerland - Manufacturer of fine cameras - Products - Cameras - Camera Bodies ;-)

[sdai]

For the price of an Alpa 12XY, P65+ or Aptus 10, plus a nice Schneider/Rodenstock lens, you can buy 20+ Canon 5D ... even more at wholesale price.

[AlanG]

That's cool but not for every purpose of course ;-)

 

You need this baby:

ALPA of Switzerland - Manufacturer of fine cameras - Products - Cameras - Camera Bodies ;-)

 

Shots made with he Alpa and other MF wide angle cameras will often also need to be stitched to get the angle of view and perspective correction that I am talking about.

[georg]

The XY was designed for stitching - that's what I meant.

[AlanG]

The XY was designed for stitching - that's what I meant.

 

Stitching on MF was at the heart of my discussion with the MF sales rep a few days ago. He was trying to sell me on the idea of using a 22 megapixel Phase One back and multi shot adapter on the back of my Linhof Technikardan 45S. The idea was to use standard 6x9 and 4x5 lenses. This would work ok but is much more clunkly than shooting several shots with a 35mm and stitching. I really have this technique down. It works well, is much easier to shoot with, and it costs very little. Consider the advantages of looking through an slr optical viewfinder as you move the camera on the head versus having to do trial and error off the lcd.

 

Very important ---> The way stitching software can produce a "planar" or rectilinear image from panned shots, it is no longer necessary to have lenses that cover a wide field in order to allow shifts.

 

And considering I use a multi row pano head, shifting the back is not as versatile as panning. My concern with shooting MF and wide lenses plus stitching also has to do with color fringing when shifting lenses in various directions on an MF back. He assured me it would be fine. But I don't know and I don't need to know.

[Gentleman Villain]

I have to disagree with this hopeless statement.. comeon have you seen the files from the lowly a900 sony? digital 35 is just getting better and cheaper.. period

it is better than a hasselblad loaded with film..

I too shot very little 35 film as it was just not up to the commerical needs I had.. but everything has shifted down.. your largeformat film is now mfdb.. and 120 film is ff35digital..

where does this leave the S2? I feel it is a true mf camera with the ergonomics of the smaller 35mm size dslrs. if you don't need viewcamera movements the files from it should be good for almost everything in the commercial print world.. there will always be guys who want the ultimate.. so get yourself a mfdb multishot..or the 65+ phaseone..

at this point in time if I could bankroll it for 2009 I would have the S2 and the 65+ on a viewcamera.. do I need all that resolution.. no, but the large sensor for dof is nice.. also the option of shooting @15mp ..

I really wish leica would bring out a new version of bellows with t/s and a apo 90-150 zoom made for it.. all these manufactures just play kissup to the fashion/people/architecture shooters, not a new story but a lot of us still life guys are still trying to jerryrig 30 year old technika lenses with compur shutters to mfdbs.. nobody is building a new modular technical view camera system..with modern lenses.. sorry but a 100mm f 5.6 is not what I want to shoot with.

 

Yeah..I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. It's too bad that manufacturers are so biased towards fashion photographers etc. It would be nice to see more tilt/shift bellows type of features offered for the still life and studio product shooters (not just architectural photogs) The ability to adjust a focal plane is the bread and butter of the craft. Tilt/Shift movements ARE photography. Sadly, the ability to manipulate a focal plane and adjust perspective without software is almost becoming a dying art. I'm seeing evidence that a lot of up-n-comers have relied too much on auto-focus and they aren't really in control of their focal plane. Also, the tilt/shift options offered by most camera makers nowadays are focused towards architectural shooters and not still life product shooters. They do have different needs....

 

I also agree with your statements that the traditional terms small/medium/large format are not necessarily relevant anymore. The resolution I can get from a modern 35mm camera matches a lot of my old 2 1/4 film shots.

 

But, I still think that 35mm is a hopeless format when it comes to image quality. These 35mm CMOS cameras may have high resolution but they can't render texture in a convincing manner. The lack of realistic texture would become painfully obvious when photographing food that needs to look convincingly realistic. Chocolate, cookies, bread, blueberries etc all look realistic in terms of texture when captured on film or CCD. But they can appear like plastic when photographed on these modern 35mm CMOS camera systems. What good is high resolution if a rose doesn't look like a rose? A camera system simply must render texture in a life-like manner in order for it to claim high image quality.

 

Texture is just one of the qualities that isn't being adequately captured by most of the modern 35s. Limited dynamic range is destroying the ability to capture fine details of light. This is especially true when looking for the subtle reflected colors from bounced light off of surroundings.

 

The Leica M8 does a great job of capturing the qualities that I consider to make for high image quality. But the price and some of the problems associated with the M8 mean there are diminishing returns for the money invested. Personally, I'd rather have an entry level mamiya system instead. That's kinda what I mean by 35mm being a hopeless system. The resources that would have to be spent to attain high image quality in a 35mm system is usually better spent moving up to a larger format. And the Canon/Nikon 35mm CMOS offerings will probably never produce what I consider to be high image quality (although they certain will produce adequate resolution)

 

I just think that the Leica 35s have high image quality but diminishing returns for the money spent...and there is little evidence to me that the CMOS units made by other manufacturers show no evidence of ever being able to produce the image quality that I would like to see...That's why I call 35mm a hopeless format.

 

Having said all that....the S2 sounds like a perfect system for my use...it just sounds perfect...everything about it is right-on for the photographic direction I'd like to continue to pursue

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Plus you use a CCD sensor and this is my feeling on that nothing is better than CCD sensors for photography. I know many will push back on that but i have yet to see a CMOS image match the texture and look of a CCD sensors. Don't ask me the tech behind it It does not matter it is my eye that see's the difference and nothing has convinced me yet of that. Not that CMOS is bad but putting a effective screen door over the opening is just flat out stupid. I know the reasons but wish they could get rid of them. Seriously this is just my bias to them and what i see. Not sure i could be convinced any different the last three systems i have had have been CCD . DMR , M8 and now MF and my images over the last several years are just brilliant. I don't mean me but the files themselves. I simply cannot avoid that fact. I fully admit i am very biased to these comments.

[charlesphoto99]

A hopeless format for what? Get over yourself. The entire world isn't comprised of car and food commercials. Some of us like 35mm for it's portability, flexibility, and, yes, horror of horrors, its grain (or noise or whatever you want to call it).

 

I saw a show recently in Paris of the great 70's documentary photographers. Really made me want to run some Tri-X through an M or a Nikon (or a Rolleiflex). That look is, imo, what's missing from digital.

 

Anyway, that said the S2 seems like it would be a perfect system for me as I like to shoot a lot of "street" stuff with medium format (film). Alas, it's just going to be too expensive and potentially too much of a pain in the ass if it pans out anything like what I've gone through with my M8.

[sdai]

Speaking on my own behalf, I wouldn't say that 35mm is hopeless till Leica proves the R10 is hopeless.

 

To me, it's only a matter of different priorities and sadly, most of the camera companies chose to give their preferences to many other aspects in terms of image quality, such as high ISO performance.

 

Who knows what we'll see if Canon, Nikon et al only cares about ISO 100 or even ISO 50?

 

Engineering is always about compromise, it won't be different with the S2, I doubt that Leica could satisfy everyone, if they're after the extreme quality at base ISO, people shouldn't expect a lot from anything above ISO 400, especially with a 6μm Kodak CCD. It just won't happen.

 

Has anybody seen a final release image captured with the 6μm Kodak CCD? I don't think so, none of the products adopting that technology is shipping yet.

[Gentleman Villain]

 

To me, it's only a matter of different priorities and sadly, most of the camera companies chose to give their preferences to many other aspects in terms of image quality, such as high ISO performance.

 

.

 

Yeah, I totally agree.

 

A hopeless format for what? Get over yourself. The entire world isn't comprised of car and food commercials. Some of us like 35mm for it's portability, flexibility, and, yes, horror of horrors, its grain (or noise or whatever you want to call it).

 

 

I meant that digital 35 is hopeless in terms of providing image quality at a reasonable cost when compared to digital medium format. If film grain is your thing then that's awesome.... grain is cool if that's your thing. But I have never considered grain or noise to be good image quality. But grain and noise can certainly be beautiful effects when used properly.

[khun_k]

Yeah, I totally agree.

 

 

 

I meant that digital 35 is hopeless in terms of providing image quality at a reasonable cost when compared to digital medium format. If film grain is your thing then that's awesome.... grain is cool if that's your thing. But I have never considered grain or noise to be good image quality. But grain and noise can certainly be beautiful effects when used properly.

 

I would not say that the 35 is hopeless, they are still the most popular digital imaging making device and deliver most of the images we see before, today and in the future. There are some of the best images made from the 35, certainly more than medium format. I use my 1Ds3 or even the Canon G9/10 or Sigma DP-1 along with my 39mp or 33mp digital backs and they all delivered what you paid for. The size and clarity of image are few benchmarks for the so-called quality of image, more for some, less for some.

The S2 has a more unique position to the R system because it is more rightfully targeted, and in a segment that people has more tolerance on equipment for fine images. R system on the other hand is in a high competitive market and already there are proven results, in the film days the R is already hard to hold its position, it will only be more tougher in digital era. As a user, I would seriously consider S2, not the R system.

[paulmoore]

I've got a feeling from surfing forums that the S2 might hit a demographic outside of the current Leica users. It's probably gonna pull buyers that were top end Canon/Nikon and Hasselblad shooters and never considered Leica. That's just my guess though and I could be wrong

 

So...any lurkers out there care to chime in? Anybody plan on buying this camera?

 

I don't mind being a guinea pig and picking up the first version....This camera is darn exciting...I really want it

 

well getting back to the question... I know for a fact I can't think of buying one until I see some sample of what this sensor and software can do..through a real production lens. How many months before shipping of the S2 is reasonable to expect some sort of downloadable sample?? 3?

Once you start talking over 10grand, folks like myself need time to budget these these things.. I hope they don't proclaim - "okay, ze s2 is ready for shipping write ze check and see how ze images look"... nah, I am sure they are working on this now and will be uploading something wonderful for us to see soon!

 

What is inspiring is Leica's commitment to move toward perfection.. so I am patient..to better understand the good Dr.'s thinking I offer this Quote:

 

“The basis of artistic creation is not what is, but what might be; not the real, but the possible. Artists create according to the same principles as nature, but they apply them to individual entities, while nature, to use a Goethean expression, thinks nothing of individual things. She is always building and destroying, because she wants to achieve perfection, not in the individual thing, but in the whole.” -Steiner

 

I agree with this principle that nature always seeks perfection.. and mimics my desire for this camera system.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[khun_k]

Stitching on MF was at the heart of my discussion with the MF sales rep a few days ago. He was trying to sell me on the idea of using a 22 megapixel Phase One back and multi shot adapter on the back of my Linhof Technikardan 45S. The idea was to use standard 6x9 and 4x5 lenses. This would work ok but is much more clunkly than shooting several shots with a 35mm and stitching. I really have this technique down. It works well, is much easier to shoot with, and it costs very little. Consider the advantages of looking through an slr optical viewfinder as you move the camera on the head versus having to do trial and error off the lcd.

 

Very important ---> The way stitching software can produce a "planar" or rectilinear image from panned shots, it is no longer necessary to have lenses that cover a wide field in order to allow shifts.

 

And considering I use a multi row pano head, shifting the back is not as versatile as panning. My concern with shooting MF and wide lenses plus stitching also has to do with color fringing when shifting lenses in various directions on an MF back. He assured me it would be fine. But I don't know and I don't need to know.

I used to design and milled a custom sliding adapter for my P25 to work on my Linhof 612 PC-II and 617 about 4 years ago, and sadly, but true, those lenses work well on film does not perform that good with the digital back, and now I don't even consider to use them with my 39mp backs.

I think the more viable option will be the cameras such as Alpa MAX and Sinar ArTec or like the Linhof 679 with updated lense that to deliver the optimized result from latest digital sensor.

In super panoramic the least expensive option may be the Seitz VR drive, that you can use either 35mm DLSR or medium format digital back and program to take multiple shots and stitch them together. The French software RealViz does a very good job on this especially you need to output a full 360 degree QTVR. RealViz can stitch fisheye images that allow you take less shots for stitch full vision images but if you need very big prints then you can always use normal to tele lenses for higher number of image stitch.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Bottom line nothing will touch a stitching tech camera like the Alpa , Cambo ,Horseman with a 39 mg or even a lot less with the digitar lenses from Rodenstock and Schnieder. I had the Horseman SWDII Pro and it was excellent