MTF charts for first four S lenses

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Simon, scale the image height axis down to match the S-system MTF curves.

 

You're a time waster, Doug ... I did this all because of you. Before anybody starts crying foul, I should say this is only for fun and an Internet forum's 5 cent worth.

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!

[carstenw]

Here are the two curves for the 35mm lenses, probably the most demanding of the current four S-system lenses, overlaid. Note that the curves wide open are similar, with the Hasselblad having a tiny bit more sharpness in the center. The Leica is f/2.5, vs. f/3.5, however, so the performance of the Leica is really very good, and will likely improve on the Hasselblad at f/3.5. More significantly for almost all uses, the Leica's performance at f/5.6 beats the Hasselblad at f/8 hands down. Leica in red, Hasselblad underneath (and wider) in black. As was said earlier, ignore the top red line, as Hasselblad doesn't plot it.

 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[georg]

I wonder what Leica did wrong when showing the best MTFs for >35mm or simply designing & manufacturing the best lenses the past decades so this topic has to be about silly comparisons with chinese lenses or "cheaper" (who really knows, their new zoom costs 7000$!!!) Fujis?

 

The S-System uses a 6micron-sensor so the lenses have to be as least as good as those of smaller systems with 6micron-pixel-pitch (D3x, Alpha 900) so the system makes sense. A bigger lenses can compensate for worse lenses to a certain extend but who wants to pay for and carry around a big sensor when it isn't used properly?

 

The quetion is: what IQ will the whole S-System have? Can it compare to a 39MP-back + Schneider/Rodenstock? I think so. Or are the lenses limited by the sensors and we have to wait for a S3? ...

 

MTFs don't show everything and must not be compared with MTFs by other manufacturers (as long as we don't know the exact circumstances) - the shown Oly-lens for example is not measured but calculated which makes a huge difference with this production quality...

[carstenw]

You're a time waster, Doug ... I did this all because of you. Before anybody starts crying foul, I should say this is only for fun and an Internet forum's 5 cent worth.

 

I know you aren't claiming this as relevant, but I think that needs reinforcing.

 

Designing a tiny little lens is infinitely easier than designing a physically large lens, and so the fact that the Leica pretty much equals the Olympus while supporting twice the projected image says it all here. A second point is that Leica is famous for their great boke, but the 4/3 Olympus lenses are almost infamous for their harsh boke on many of the lenses.

[sdai]

I know you aren't claiming this as relevant, but I think that needs reinforcing.

 

Designing a tiny little lens is infinitely easier than designing a physically large lens, and so the fact that the Leica pretty much equals the Olympus while supporting twice the projected image says it all here. A second point is that Leica is famous for their great boke, but the 4/3 Olympus lenses are almost infamous for their harsh boke on many of the lenses.

 

That's pretty close to my point, Carsten.

 

A larger image frame will always compensate the less resolution of optics. Leica's smaller format cameras/lenses will always have to do more to beat the big brothers.

 

IMO they've made a pretty bad decision by limiting the S2's frame size at 30x45, no matter how good their lenses are, no matter how many pixels they pack into 30x45, a larger physical format digital back or DSLR can always beat it easily.

[leicar7]

One of the major points about the S2 is its similarity in size to a moderately sized 35mm DSLR. If a larger sensor would have entailed a larger body, then the portability and versatility of the S system would have been compromised, and it would have become just any other medium format clunker box.

 

The S system, while intended for event and studio professionals, will, precisely because of its size, become a street camera for the well heeled or those who can lease one. It is smaller significantly than the C bricks.

 

The quality of the S's entire image system will challenge probably any current medium format system and will surpass 35mm.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have to agree too Simon. Bottom line just like film bigger is better. The S2 will certainly kill any 35mm out there , MF certainly does that today. Now having said that here is my prediction and i shoot MF with a 22mpx sensor. My bet and I am pretty confident about this that the S2 will equal my P25 Plus but exceed it I have my doubts because MPX are meaningless it is size more than more MPX. I am so close to a P65 6 micron sensor that the difference is not worldly, It's there but not nearly as much as you think it will be. Something to be said about big fat pixels and a lot of MF shooters agree on this about the 9 micron sensor. The S2 is 6 micron and slightly more than half the SIZE of the P65 plus, do you think it will honestly come close to the same detail, no it will not but given good lenses it will come just about the same level as a 9 micron 22mpx sensor in 645. That is my prediction and I don't care how the MTF charts come up, it certainly will help the S2 sensor no question but it still is a smaller sensor than 645. We have to remember there are some great MF lenses out there. But I think Leica did the right thing here even if it is small it makes the camera more mobile and faster, that is going to make this way above the 35mm world and right in there with MF but give us MF shooters a faster camera. That part is the compelling part and that is what ultimately will be the main selling point

[sdai]

Something to be said about big fat pixels and a lot of MF shooters agree on this about the 9 micron sensor. The S2 is 6 micron and slightly more than half the SIZE of the P65 plus, do you think it will honestly come close to the same detail, no it will not but given good lenses it will come just about the same level as a 9 micron 22mpx sensor in 645. That is my prediction and I don't care how the MTF charts come up, it certainly will help the S2 sensor no question but it still is a smaller sensor than 645.

 

It may or may not happen, Guy ... I share the exact same thought as you do.

 

Technically there should be no difficulty reverting back to the 9 micron platform, but to cut the wafer into larger slices. In that case, an sensor identical to the physical size of P65+ will host 5990*4490 pixels. which is about 26 or 27 mp - in exchange, people could gain in dynamic range, high ISO performance etc.

 

Or, they could also go back and improve the 6.8 micron platform, then we'll get 7930*5940 pixels, roughly 47MP, moderately lower resolution than 60 mp but the advantage in other aspects of image quality could be huge.

 

The cost on optics improvement could run extremely high, larger sensors and faster electronics can be had at much lower cost and progress can be achieved at faster paces.

 

Moore's law certainly doesn't apply to the optics industry, the future is all about semiconductor.

 

Best to you and all on the forum, have a wonderful new year!

[carstenw]

IMO they've made a pretty bad decision by limiting the S2's frame size at 30x45, no matter how good their lenses are, no matter how many pixels they pack into 30x45, a larger physical format digital back or DSLR can always beat it easily.

 

I don't quite get what you mean here. Either the DSLR definition means FF-35mm, and the S2 has a larger form factor, and hence according to your own statement should easily best the DSLR,

 

OR

 

DSLR simply means Digital Single Lens Reflex, and the S2 is also one, and so it is competition within its class, where this particular camera exists in a class with no competition, and so the comparison makes no sense.

 

Anyway, I think what you mean is that larger sensors are better, and larger pixels are better, and I agree. But the S2 will compete very well with DSLRs (meaning FF-35mm here) IQ-wise, and yet will compete very well with MF handling-wise, and it is exactly this combination of strengths which makes the camera interesting to certain photohgraphers, *regardless* of the various weaknesses. We are talking about photographers for whom MF is too slow, yet DSLRs have too low IQ. The S2 solves that.

[rosuna]

The key difference between 35mm and MF is, in my opinion, the subtle transitions (sharpness, tonalities) of the larger formats. You can get more detail as well, and fine detail with higher contrast... but that is not the decisive point for me.

[carstenw]

While I agree, the question is where that comes from. With a pixel pitch equivalent to some DSLR system, if the S2 retains this look, it cannot come from there. There is also a possibility that the relaxed look and gentle transitions simply come from lenses which are not pushed so close to their limits, as is the case with FF-35mm optics. In that case, the tightly designed S2 lenses might lose that look. It will be interesting to see more samples. Perhaps the S2 will lose the old MF look, and will simply have higher-resolution, sharper images in the visual style of 35mm systems.

[georg]

The DMR/M8 produce very "MF-like"-files and I think it's simply the combination of a CCD with very limited digital post-processing (even sharpening or any kind of filtering makes the image more artificial looking), no AA-filter and high-quality lenses.

Of course we have to keep in mind that the same enlargement factor will lead to smaller prints because of the very limited file size (@300ppi 22x33cm) or larger enlargements will lose this "MF-like"-quality.

 

I think Leica has chosen the 30x45mm-format very carefully, they asked the photographers what file size they need and they decided for a proper format which differentiates from any 35mm-system while enabling a small body & fast lenses.

I think it's the combination of size/handling and IQ that makes the S-system interesting, it seems very efficient (because it was designed with only this format in mind). When the lenses are limiting the system, 39MP will still deliver higher resolution than 22MP on the same sensor size, but the difference becomes more and more neglible and therefore less "efficient". Smaller pixels/bigger enlargements are more demanding but I think this is exactly what Leica can handle with these lenses.

[dfarkas]

Anyway, I think what you mean is that larger sensors are better, and larger pixels are better, and I agree. But the S2 will compete very well with DSLRs (meaning FF-35mm here) IQ-wise, and yet will compete very well with MF handling-wise, and it is exactly this combination of strengths which makes the camera interesting to certain photohgraphers, *regardless* of the various weaknesses. We are talking about photographers for whom MF is too slow, yet DSLRs have too low IQ. The S2 solves that.

 

Carsten,

 

I couldn't have said this better myself. The S2 should deliver IQ in spades and have much improved handling, size, and speed over existing MF solutions.

 

I also look at how the new P65+ uses 6um pixels, just as the S2 does. So, does the argument about larger pixels really hold? A larger sensor can reduce demands on lenses, but doesn't the smaller pixel size of these new digital backs demand higher resolving optics? In this regard, I believe Leica has really used their superior lens design ability to give them an advantage in this area. We've already seen from Jack and Guy's recent testing (GetDPI) of the P25+, P45+, and P65+ that each higher level of digital back has an increase in dynamic range, which seems contrary to the point that larger pixels give greater DR. The P25+ has 9um pixels, while the P45+ uses 6.8um, and the newest P65+ uses 6um. So, at least with Phase One, as the pixel size decreases, the DR and IQ both improve. Also from this test, we can see that the P65+ (60MP), even under ideal conditions, wasn't resolving much more detail than the P45+ (39MP). Maybe the lens was the limiting factor, or maybe 60MP isn't really necessary for 99% of imaging applications.

 

So, Leica using the latest 6um micron technology and 37.5MP doesn't seem like a bad way to go, providing the optics can resolve to that pixel size. Obviously, I don't think this system is lens-limited. I'd expect the quality from the S2 to match the P45+, not just 22MP systems. And, I don't think there will be any reasonable comparison with A900, 5DII, or D3x. The S2 is playing in a different sandbox.

 

Then, we look at the handling and speed vs. existing MF offerings. The S2 has at least a twice as fast frame rate. With a 1GB internal buffer and the blazingly fast Maestro DSP the S2 should keep up with even the most demanding shoot. I agree that the S2 is not a sports camera, but it very well may be the perfect fashion and landscape camera. Leaf shutter and focal plane shutter. High flash sync when you need it for outdoor fashion with battery-powered lighting and higher shutter speed when you need to shoot wide open in full sun. Add in weather-sealing (the only MF to do so) and you have a go-anywhere system that is as rugged as a C or N DSLR. Perfect for those grueling SI Swimsuit Issue shoots in St. Barts. Big screen (visible outdoors), simple interface, wi-fi tethering, dual memory card slots, variable RAW size output, 35mm DSLR size, vertical grip, fast AF, short shutter delay and mirror blackout, and of course, reference-class optics all make the S2 a very flexible and usable system.

 

For my shooting I could see using just an S2 and my M8.2.

 

David

[georg]

"I also look at how the new P65+ uses 6um pixels, just as the S2 does. So, does the argument about larger pixels really hold? A larger sensor can reduce demands on lenses, but doesn't the smaller pixel size of these new digital backs demand higher resolving optics?

 

Yes and no. While not using it's full potencial by using mediocre lenses, it's less demanding to reach the IQ of a smaller system, because the enlargement is lower.

 

But when I pay 40k$ for a P65 I want to use these tiny pixels from corner to corner, that's for sure... ;-)

[sdai]

But when I pay 40k$ for a P65 I want to use these tiny pixels from corner to corner, that's for sure... ;-)

 

I think Hasselblad has made a mistake by putting too much emphasis on digital correction in marketing, which in turn leads people to believe that the HC lenses are inferior to their Zeiss predecessors, which is not the case.

 

Let's take a look at the HC 3.5/35 and the CFE 4/40 here, they all have a 89 degrees diagonal view angle on respective cameras so they can be considered as identical.

 

I'm stacking the MTF charts of both at open apertures so you can see the HC lens (red curves) is not shabby at all.

 

The identical Leica S lens should be a 24mm on the 30x45 picture frame, which is not available yet so we really don't know how it will compare to the CFE or HC lens.

 

To achieve the identical diagonal AOV, a 28mm on 645 FF is identical to a 30mm on 503, which has never happened if my memory is correct, the 30mm Zeiss is a fisheye. The widest rectlinear Zeiss for Hassie was the 40mm. An identical focal length on a 35mm FF would be 17mm, which is pretty hard to get right IMO. There's really nothing to complain about the HCD 28.

 

It's like the Noctilux, somebody hate it, others must have it, and every Leica buff has to try it.

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!

[carstenw]

Let's take a look at the HC 3.5/35 and the CFE 4/40 here, they all have a 89 degrees diagonal view angle on respective cameras so they can be considered as identical.

 

Which Zeiss 40mm lens did you use? Only the IF has great MTF charts, but at the cost of extra distortion. I think this gets back to an old truth: the MTF charts alone can be very misleading. Distortion is also very important, as is boke and so on. The 40 IF has proven itself as a top-notch lens, provided the distortion doesn't bother you.

[sdai]

Which Zeiss 40mm lens did you use? Only the IF has great MTF charts, but at the cost of extra distortion. I think this gets back to an old truth: the MTF charts alone can be very misleading. Distortion is also very important, as is boke and so on. The 40 IF has proven itself as a top-notch lens, provided the distortion doesn't bother you.

 

It is the chart for the 40 IF, that's the only one you can find on Zeiss's web site now.

 

In terms of distortion, the HC 35 does actually better than the 40 IF.

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!

[carstenw]

It is the chart for the 40 IF, that's the only one you can find on Zeiss's web site now.

 

In terms of distortion, the HC 35 does actually better than the 40 IF.

 

Right, as I mentioned (read carefully), the IF is quite sharp out into the corners, but exhibits more distortion than the older versions.

[sdai]

Right, as I mentioned (read carefully) ...

 

Thanks for the reminder ... it appears sometimes I can type faster than I can read, perhaps I shall add a disclaimer as a footnote to all my posts. LOL

 

Cheers.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rosuna]

Do Hasselblad's MTF graphs consider software corrections or only optical performance?