georg Posted November 8, 2008 Share #61 Posted November 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica has always done both, developing & producing lenses and cameras. And their cameras (not Minolta-cooperations of the past) are simply great from M to Leicaflex and finally R8/9. The mechanical quality, the perfect ergonomics, the bright viewfinder - perfect for every "slow" photography purpose. Their lenses are outstanding and since Carl Zeiss barely makes any new designs for Photography (not Cosina) they can come up with unique performances in the S-System, especially thinking of more complex designs ("normal lenses" stopped down are good enough for most backs anyway but varios, high-speed-lenses, Ultra-WA are something different...). Giving these lenses to others (or designing lenses for 645) would hurt their camera department. The really open system will remain the Franke&Heidecke Hy6-System. I'm really curious to see first (final) real-world results of the S2 + lenses, thinking of the tiny sensors in DMR/M8 and their real-world performance in combination with their lenses raises really high expectations, far from being just a "small MF-System". We'll see :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 Hi georg, Take a look here Wait for S2 or snap up a deal.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
georg Posted November 8, 2008 Share #62 Posted November 8, 2008 Back on-topic: I think both systems, S2 and even the best deal for a Hasselblad you can think of is stil too expensive to "snap up", to hurry things. When you can wait (you have tools you can satisfy yourself/clients for the next months*) you should wait and then compare and decide in which of these expensive systems you want to invest (propably for the next 10 or 20 years). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share #63 Posted November 10, 2008 Back on-topic: I think both systems, S2 and even the best deal for a Hasselblad you can think of is stil too expensive to "snap up", to hurry things. When you can wait (you have tools you can satisfy yourself/clients for the next months*) you should wait and then compare and decide in which of these expensive systems you want to invest (propably for the next 10 or 20 years). Dang... if you'd only told me that a couple of days ago... on Thursday I took delivery of a Phase One 645III camera kit with P45+ back and 80mm 2.8 lens... with a P1/Hartblei 45mm tilt shift lens on order... It gives the kind of Zing an M8 gives - just with a bigger file! :-) Tim 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/66917-wait-for-s2-or-snap-up-a-deal/?do=findComment&comment=710504'>More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 1, 2009 Share #64 Posted February 1, 2009 Tim, I find myself in the same boat as you. I own an M8, which I use 99% of the time. I also have a full Contax 645 system, which has the unbelievably beautiful Zeiss 120 Makro Planar, and I also have a 4x5 camera. I think it would be nice to get a good digital back for the Contax for portraiture because you usually take more shots, but I have to say that for anything landscape and architectural, the movements of the 4x5 are just an absolute necessity. Since it is such a pain in the back setting up the 4x5, I usually don't shoot more than 10-20 pictures a day with it, and this is on a once every three-month outing. It is just hard work. So even though I would like to buy a digital back or an S2, I really can't justify the expense since I spent so much time selecting and composing the shoots with these large cameras that I simply don't shoot as many pictures as with the M8. The M8 on the other hand, has changed my photography. I think I have really improved as an artist over the last two years simply by being able to take so many pictures that now when I go out with a film M, I shoot so much less because I have narrowed down my style and really learned to previsualize even a fleeting moment. So after giving you all these reasons why I really cannot justify buying an MF back for my 645, I am sure I'll buy one before the end of the year. Why? Because it's fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted February 2, 2009 Share #65 Posted February 2, 2009 The P30 and CFV backs are last generation products, already discontinued or to be discontinued. So they're out of the consideration. I'm obviously speaking for myself only, but limiting the physical sensor size at 30x45mm is like suicide IMO, and the 6 micro pixel pitch is approaching current technology's limit, even smaller than the 40D's pixels (6.4 micron). Perhaps they'll change the mount again at some time and eventually come to real medium format. in my view the jump from 35mm FF 24mpx to the P30 is not a big enough step up in resolution to justify the inconvenience. i do see a tonality improvement, but not in dynamic range. the nikon D3 has at least 12 stops of DR, some have even measured more. at 37 or 39 mpx the resolution gain becomes definitely worthwhile but there i prefer the larger dalsa/kodak sensors over the S2 sensor size. apparently the S2 sensor is the same technology as the one hasselblad uses in the H3DII 50 (which is excellent and really improves over the 39mpx versions), but just smaller. if you need the res then there are no other choices than the P60, H3DII 60 (out this summer) ot the new Aptus 10. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 2, 2009 Share #66 Posted February 2, 2009 Yes, but a medium format camera is a beast. I could really see myself carrying the S2 with two lenses, a portrait lens, and a 35mm equivalent when I travel or have to access remote locations, whereas my Contax 645 package does not like to stray too far from the trunk of my car. If Leica comes close to the image quality of the Phase One backs, this osuld definitely be a success. Granted, they market the camera successfully. What impressed me when I watched the video of the S2 test shoot is how the photographer could not stop turning the focus ring on the Leica lens throughout the whole interview. This kind of stuff matters when you are working with a beautiful tool day in day out and you derive a tactile pleasure out of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted February 2, 2009 Share #67 Posted February 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) in my view the jump from 35mm FF 24mpx to the P30 is not a big enough step up in resolution to justify the inconvenience. i do see a tonality improvement, but not in dynamic range. the nikon D3 has at least 12 stops of DR, some have even measured more. at 37 or 39 mpx the resolution gain becomes definitely worthwhile but there i prefer the larger dalsa/kodak sensors over the S2 sensor size. apparently the S2 sensor is the same technology as the one hasselblad uses in the H3DII 50 (which is excellent and really improves over the 39mpx versions), but just smaller.if you need the res then there are no other choices than the P60, H3DII 60 (out this summer) ot the new Aptus 10. I absolutely agree, Peter. When Leica boasts 56% larger sensor than 35mm SLRs, it's quite misleading because they choose not to say that it's only 25% bigger in both x and y. I don't think the resolution gain in both directions are big enough to justify such a hassle with a new mount. Just a joke if it's allowed ... I'm guessing the reason why Leica didn't go straight forward to build a real medium format camera is because the letter M has been taken by its rangefinder system, they also don't want to built a dinosaur so the L (large) is out of consideration too. Now they can only go for the S, which stands for small. I will never put another post in the S2 forum again because I don't have much good to say about a system which I'm not interested at all ... many should be happy now. May our roads cross again in other forums on this site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 3, 2009 Share #68 Posted February 3, 2009 Well, but 37mp vs. 10mp is quite a jump and well worth the trouble. Maybe they can cram some more mp on the next M sensor. Who knows, or maybe the Maestro engine will bring us an extended dynamic range for the M9. Whatever it is, it seems great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted February 3, 2009 Share #69 Posted February 3, 2009 The "Maesto Engine" can improve energy consumption, processing time and JPG-quality but it can't improve RAW IQ. That's why I'm surprised seeing no hig-ISO, DR, IQ-tests for the H3D-50 with it's entirely new Kodak-CCD also used in the S2, therefore, it's IQ (regarding DR - sensitivity is different because of missing microlenses, although comparison to the old 6,8µm-MFDBs should be possible) should be very similar. M9/R10 will share the Maestro-processor and most likely the 6µm-sensor-class (Kodak or Dalsa). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 3, 2009 Share #70 Posted February 3, 2009 And processing time is definitely something that could be improved on the M8. I have shot portraits in the studio many times and after about ten shots waited for what seemed linke an eternity until the buffer has cleared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
t024484 Posted February 3, 2009 Share #71 Posted February 3, 2009 The "Maesto Engine" can improve energy consumption, processing time and JPG-quality but it can't improve RAW IQ. That's why I'm surprised seeing no hig-ISO, DR, IQ-tests for the H3D-50 with it's entirely new Kodak-CCD also used in the S2, therefore, it's IQ (regarding DR - sensitivity is different because of missing microlenses, although comparison to the old 6,8µm-MFDBs should be possible) should be very similar. M9/R10 will share the Maestro-processor and most likely the 6µm-sensor-class (Kodak or Dalsa). You might be wrong with the RAW IQ. The Raw picture that is coming from the camera is unlikely to be the same as the one that the Sensor has produced. It has probably being processed in several ways. One of them being noise reduction. Also other corrections could have been made to correct nonlinear behaviour of the sensor. The faster the processor, the more you can correct. Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulmoore Posted February 3, 2009 Share #72 Posted February 3, 2009 The CFV was discontinued but now there's CFV II. LOL Ok, to get all facts straight and make everyone happy, I've just remade my diagram. ..thanks for posting this visual Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted February 3, 2009 Share #73 Posted February 3, 2009 Leica RAWs (and as far as I know, RAWs from MFDBs either) aren't "corrected" or "manipulated" in any way, only certain capture information is stored (like the lens used or WB) and can be used by the converter automatically (but can be switched off, too). Some people suspect that many CMOS-based cameras manipulate even their RAWs (CMOS has certain processing power anyway) causing the "plastic" look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted February 4, 2009 Share #74 Posted February 4, 2009 I just noticed that my statement wasn't 100% correct, the second exposure for long times on the M8 is used for noise reduction and directly written into ONE RAW-file. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
t024484 Posted February 5, 2009 Share #75 Posted February 5, 2009 I just noticed that my statement wasn't 100% correct, the second exposure for long times on the M8 is used for noise reduction and directly written into ONE RAW-file. Each indivdual pixel has its own behaviour. It has a DC error, it has an individual gain, and it has its own gain linearity, and all those factors being influenced by temperature, On top of that there is AC noise, also very temp dependant. And then you have a lens with a filter that is not ideal So the ideal processor that would have stored all this info, could transform the output of a real life sensor plus lens into a much better image. High Iso performance is getting better and better with those high end Canon and Nikon's. The information that I can find on Sensors, does not justify these large improvements. The S2 sensor still has the same S/N as the M8 sensor has, just as an example. I suspect that sensor output processing is vital to this improvement, because the recent Japanese cameras have processing power far beyond the capabilities of the current M8. For sure does Leica make noise corrections by comparing two images on a pixel to pixel base. For sure are they making Cyan drift corrections and vignetting corrections, but what else do they do and can be done by the current processor. The buffer in continous mode would never become full if no processing was performed on the sensor output, shooting in RAW mode only, so quite some processing is being performed. But I am sure Leica is not going to tell us which processing this is. If they will keep the current sensor with the newly developped processor, and if noise performance has been improved, you know why. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted February 5, 2009 Share #76 Posted February 5, 2009 If you are using a non-live view sensor, there is nothing to prevent you from reading a dark frame of noise just micro seconds prior to opening the shutter for a dark frame subtraction of sensor noise. Whether they do this or not is another question. It may require fast electronics to perform this feat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
t024484 Posted February 5, 2009 Share #77 Posted February 5, 2009 If you are using a non-live view sensor, there is nothing to prevent you from reading a dark frame of noise just micro seconds prior to opening the shutter for a dark frame subtraction of sensor noise. Whether they do this or not is another question. It may require fast electronics to perform this feat. The reading of one (dark) frame takes between 1/4 and 1/3 of a second. Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted February 5, 2009 Share #78 Posted February 5, 2009 That may be true with the M8 but clearly is not true as a general rule or you couldn't get 10 fps cameras or cameras that shoot video at 30 fps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 6, 2009 Share #79 Posted February 6, 2009 That may be true with the M8 but clearly is not true as a general rule or you couldn't get 10 fps cameras or cameras that shoot video at 30 fps. John, I'm not sure there are 10fps still cameras that do dark-frame subtraction for noise. Or that you'd need it; if you're shooting longer exposures (over 1second, say) what does 10 fps mean again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted February 6, 2009 Share #80 Posted February 6, 2009 Jamie, There are several DSLRs that can shoot at 10 frames per second (fps). There are some cameras that can shoot much faster such as the Casio EXILIM EX-FH20 ultra zoom at 40 fps. Therefore, all I am suggesting is that they COULD perform dark frame subtraction as a noise reduction technique, not that they do, since I don't know what algorithm they use. My point being that the reading of one dark frame doesn't have to take 1/3 or 1/4 second but could happen in less than 1/10 th second with many still cameras as long as the readout logic is fast enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.