price of the new S2

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In one way the S2 will be (maybe) faster and bette handling than a MF camera and deliver better IQ than a 35mm DSLR.

On the other side it will still not offer the speed and flexibility and AF as a Nikon D3c or Canon or Sony. The lens options are also by far not as flexible compared to the DLSR-systems. So in the end it might be a MF kind of camera with a little bit better handling for a price nearly as high as a MF system

[Advertisement]

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

[georg]

The question is:

Will it have SUFFICIENT speed, ergonomics, handiness, IQ...

If I want speed, I use a 1dMKIIII!

If I want IQ I drum-scan 8x10 film!

But neither of these choices is suited for most professional work for magazines, high-quality documentary, "beauty-shots" - basically the not too small market at the top-end of photography...

The S-Systems claims to be the ideal COMPROMISE for this kind of photography, and from what we now from technical data and what I've personally seen, that's true in most aspects.

 

The AF is quite fast and the build-quality is no comparison to Fuji or Nikon, one example: it is entirely sealed with only inductive buttons instead of rubber sealings or turn the focus ring once, you feel the difference...

The ergonomics are great, it's not an M that has to be liked by "traditionialists", it's more like the R8/9.

The M8 has a small sensor and the ISO-perfomance of the previous-CCD-generation (~ -1 stop?). So it's basically a small P45 - everything below 800ASA (where most people shot, right?) works great. IR-sensitivity? The lenses are therefore smaller and better (less retrofocus) - a fair trade to me.

I don't know how DXOMark exactly works (do they even support the M8 in their converter?), but many of their claims are strange, like 1.5 stops more DR from the same manufacturer with smaller pixels from the same technology generation (D3X vs. D3), one stop more than newest 6µm-backs or the Sony A900 which uses the same sensor (the D3X-sensor is as much Nikon as the S2-sensor is Leica)? Come on...

 

@sdai

And? I wasn't able to test S-lenses (anyone?) yet but when I compare my M-lenses with similar MTFs with the perfomance of Rodenstock HR - lenses, I would say that they have at least comparable performance even considering this weird kind of comparison, suggesting that I "throw away" the image size-difference of my system by bying satisifying inferior resolution per mm (when I have two times the image size I want two times the usable resolution, I hope you know what I mean but I know that with the 30% (30x45->42x56) larger 645-format you only need less high-frequency performance to get the same result). The 60MP-class will offer larger files with more information, but it has it's disadvantage due it's size alone, sure there's a market for those who will need this additional quality, but aren't most people happy with the resolution of their 39MP-backs and would rather want a more compact, faster system? Leica had to design their system for ONE sensor size to make it "efficient" and this compromise was made to meet the demands of the customers - you need more performance you choose 645, you need less you get 35mm - so simple.

[sdai]

The question is:

Will it have SUFFICIENT speed, ergonomics, handiness, IQ...

If I want speed, I use a 1dMKIIII!

If I want IQ I drum-scan 8x10 film!

But neither of these choices is suited for most professional work for magazines, high-quality documentary, "beauty-shots" - basically the not too small market at the top-end of photography...

The S-Systems claims to be the ideal COMPROMISE for this kind of photography, and from what we now from technical data and what I've personally seen, that's true in most aspects.

 

Georg, it was you who compared the S lenses to the Rodenstock/Schneider lenses, not me ... but you've hit the nail in the head, now that you've said the S2 is about a COMPROMISE.

 

There's no doubt that S2 will cater the needs of a tiny niche, but for the applications you've mentioned, I doubt one could get satisfactory results for documentary style photography with it because such high pixel density definitely requires disciplined shooting technique, you can't do like holding a M8 in streets, on the other hand, current flocks of 35mm DSLRs can already produce decent 13" or 17" wide prints, double spreads in magazines are peanuts, as many have pointed out previously, there won't be any meaningful difference unless your prints exceeds a certain size.

 

The AF is quite fast and the build-quality is no comparison to Fuji or Nikon,

 

Really? then why Leica is having a hard time to bring out the R10?

 

@sdai

And? I wasn't able to test S-lenses (anyone?) yet but when I compare my M-lenses with similar MTFs with the perfomance of Rodenstock HR - lenses, I would say that they have at least comparable performance even considering this weird kind of comparison,.

 

I have said many times, looking at these MTF charts won't make too much sense, the final results coming from an integral system is what you spend these money for.

 

I've never put Leica engineers capability into doubt, but, everything has its limit. Even they can produce a straight line on TOP of the chart along the border line, so what?

 

The sensor size is limited.

 

It's like giving you a beautifully made German handgun and letting you to fight in Afghanistan, before you could see a Taliban you are already shot from a distance by someone with a crappy machine gun.

[markowich]

your arguments go in loops. you argue for megapixels and sensor size but find disadvantages in weight and ergonomics of real MF cameras, which have a proven track record by now. recalls me of typical leica-fan arguments: ideal compromise of weight, size, IQ, ergonomics, prize, design, leather covering possible, nice red dot.....

but when you look at it in more detail it does not excel anywhere except in a self-defined notion of 'exclusivity'. the prada of cameras....

so far the m8 is the only leica digital camera (except various panasonics leica branded) and it is an expensive disaster zone. not even interesting for collectors, who like to keep the packaging closed.

peter

 

The question is:

Will it have SUFFICIENT speed, ergonomics, handiness, IQ...

If I want speed, I use a 1dMKIIII!

If I want IQ I drum-scan 8x10 film!

But neither of these choices is suited for most professional work for magazines, high-quality documentary, "beauty-shots" - basically the not too small market at the top-end of photography...

The S-Systems claims to be the ideal COMPROMISE for this kind of photography, and from what we now from technical data and what I've personally seen, that's true in most aspects.

 

The AF is quite fast and the build-quality is no comparison to Fuji or Nikon, one example: it is entirely sealed with only inductive buttons instead of rubber sealings or turn the focus ring once, you feel the difference...

The ergonomics are great, it's not an M that has to be liked by "traditionialists", it's more like the R8/9.

The M8 has a small sensor and the ISO-perfomance of the previous-CCD-generation (~ -1 stop?). So it's basically a small P45 - everything below 800ASA (where most people shot, right?) works great. IR-sensitivity? The lenses are therefore smaller and better (less retrofocus) - a fair trade to me.

I don't know how DXOMark exactly works (do they even support the M8 in their converter?), but many of their claims are strange, like 1.5 stops more DR from the same manufacturer with smaller pixels from the same technology generation (D3X vs. D3), one stop more than newest 6µm-backs or the Sony A900 which uses the same sensor (the D3X-sensor is as much Nikon as the S2-sensor is Leica)? Come on...

 

@sdai

And? I wasn't able to test S-lenses (anyone?) yet but when I compare my M-lenses with similar MTFs with the perfomance of Rodenstock HR - lenses, I would say that they have at least comparable performance even considering this weird kind of comparison, suggesting that I "throw away" the image size-difference of my system by bying satisifying inferior resolution per mm (when I have two times the image size I want two times the usable resolution, I hope you know what I mean but I know that with the 30% (30x45->42x56) larger 645-format you only need less high-frequency performance to get the same result). The 60MP-class will offer larger files with more information, but it has it's disadvantage due it's size alone, sure there's a market for those who will need this additional quality, but aren't most people happy with the resolution of their 39MP-backs and would rather want a more compact, faster system? Leica had to design their system for ONE sensor size to make it "efficient" and this compromise was made to meet the demands of the customers - you need more performance you choose 645, you need less you get 35mm - so simple.

[pascal_meheut]

so far the m8 is the only leica digital camera

Did not notice. Are you sure you are not forgetting something?

 

and it is an expensive disaster zone.

Did not notice neither. Are you sure you are not a little biased?

 

not even interesting for collectors,

I did notice that collectors are not interested in digital cameras, whatever the brand. So maybe blaming the M8 for this is a little stretchy?

[markowich]

Did not notice. Are you sure you are not forgetting something?

 

sorry, forgot the DMR. strange that it keeps dropping out of my list.

 

Did not notice neither. Are you sure you are not a little biased?

 

m8: had mine for a year. time enough to take some nice pictures but mainly to get to know the flaws.

 

peter

[t024484]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Georg,

 

I've posted countless times, full frame 645 has 40% more picture height than the S2 therefore, at the same angle of view, to resolve the same amount of detail, a S2 lens has to be 40% better than the HC lens.

 

To resolve the same amount of detail as a large format 4x5 can do at the same picture angle, a S2 lens has to be 240% better than the Rodenstock lens or an equivalent Schneider lens.

 

You can dream on but that will never happen.

 

The biggest flaw of the S2?

 

Leica doesn't build it as a removable back and limits its size at 30x45.

 

Why do you think PhaseOne would help Leica with it? because it can never compete against Phase backs.

 

I have a problem in following your calculation.

Just looking at the picture height gives a wrong impression, because you are comparing apples to pears, ratios are 2:3 against 4:5.

A much better way is to compare the diagonal of both sensors, being resp 6.4 and 5.4 cm.

This is only a difference of 18%.

So given the fact that the lens is the determining factor in resolution, and not the sensor, in that case should the Leica lens have a resolution that is 18% better and not 240%.

 

Hans

[georg]

645 is about 70% larger than 30x45 (area) and 30% measured by it's diameter.

Schneider/Rodenstock lenses have an image circle even larger than 645, his 240% compared it with large-format.

 

@markowich

It does not excel anywhere? Have you handled it? Are there any MF-systems this fast, small, rugged or have a fully usable f-stop 2.5 (MF-lenses I know have decent IQ @ f4 or even f5.6) for most lenses? Will there by any 35mm-system able to deliver the same IQ?

From what we now from technical specs: no - let's wait and see if they get it right in reality...

 

@sdai

Every system is optimized for ONE film/sensor-size - the S2 is optimized for 30x45, the Hasselblad H for 41x56mm - everthing smaller will be some kind of crop.

Of course it's easier to meet/surpass the IQ of the S with a bigger sensor (less demanding for lenses, less enlargement....) but the smaller size of the S-System also has it's advantages, like lenses which are faster (especially wanting high performance).

No 35mm-system has sufficient print-quality for high-quality magazine-prints, it's all MFDB and large format - the S2 will be most likely capable of the needed quality.

[sdai]

I have a problem in following your calculation.

Just looking at the picture height gives a wrong impression, because you are comparing apples to pears, ratios are 2:3 against 4:5.

A much better way is to compare the diagonal of both sensors, being resp 6.4 and 5.4 cm.

This is only a difference of 18%.

So given the fact that the lens is the determining factor in resolution, and not the sensor, in that case should the Leica lens have a resolution that is 18% better and not 240%.

 

Hans

 

You don't even read my post carefully before jumping the gun, Hans.

 

The size of a S2 sensor is 30mm x 45 mm, the size of 4x5 large format film is102mm x127mm.

 

Vertical: (102-30)/30=240%

Horizontal: (127-45)/45=182%

 

How the tiny Leica is gonna beat it???

 

When compared to full frame 645, the math is ... 645 FF larger. But, tell me who is measuring diagonal resolution?

 

Vertical: (42-30)/30=40%

Horizontal: (56-45)/45=24%

Diagonal: (70-54)/54=29.6%

[t024484]

645 is about 70% larger than 30x45 (area) and 30% measured by it's diameter.

Schneider/Rodenstock lenses have an image circle even larger than 645, his 240% compared it with large-format.

 

 

I was confused by the 4*5 in SDAI's posting, but you are right 645 means a huge 6*4.5.

The diagonal in that case is 39% larger as the 3*4.5 Sensor.

Thank you for explaining.

 

Hans

[sdai]

@sdai

Every system is optimized for ONE film/sensor-size - the S2 is optimized for 30x45, the Hasselblad H for 41x56mm - everthing smaller will be some kind of crop.

Of course it's easier to meet/surpass the IQ of the S with a bigger sensor (less demanding for lenses, less enlargement....) but the smaller size of the S-System also has it's advantages, like lenses which are faster (especially wanting high performance).

No 35mm-system has sufficient print-quality for high-quality magazine-prints, it's all MFDB and large format - the S2 will be most likely capable of the needed quality.

 

You could also say the Panasonic fisheye lens is optimized for the D Lux4, Georg ... I will have no objection to that.

 

So faster lens means "high performance"? Canon built a 50/.95 in the 1960s and that must be high performance by your definition, almost every crappy optical shop can handle a 50/1.4 yet to be seen in the S lineup ... yeh, they're all high performance.

 

Regarding magazine prints, the S2 should do better then average 35mm so what's the surprise? but I don't see anything special from the initial S2 samples printed in LFI, they're certainly not better than the M8 and/or DMR shots published in LFI before.

 

If you look at the eye lash of the model in LFI print, it's pretty fuzzy and all in a mush ... not sure if it's camera shake or just because of lousy print quality.

[tom0511]

The M8 is not flawed.

It delievers excellent IQ (up to ISO 640) with nearly MF-like transitions and tones, it has a very simple and intuitive userinterface, its light, unobstrusive, there are excellent lenses available.

There were some issues in the early beginning - they were all solved.

The M8 keeps its value better than mos DSLRs.

I just dont get it - where is the problem with the M8?

[markowich]

The M8 is not flawed.

It delievers excellent IQ (up to ISO 640)

 

up to 200

 

with nearly MF-like transitions and tones, it has a very simple and intuitive userinterface,

 

you must be kidding. intuitive? go into the menu to change iso and +/-? this is intuitive???

 

its light,

 

true

 

unobstrusive,

 

bad shutter noise, needed update to m8.2 (not free of charge...)

 

there are excellent lenses available.

 

true

 

There were some issues in the early beginning - they were all solved.

 

can you take the UV-IR filter already off without caveats?

 

The M8 keeps its value better than mos DSLRs.

 

?????overpriced to start with.

 

I just dont get it - where is the problem with the M8?

 

peter

[Jamie Roberts]

Peter, in fairness, the M8 is a very good, award-winning design for manual digital photography. I couldn't care less about going into a menu to change ISO and since I don't use EV +- (it's called "shutter" and "aperture" for me) I care even less about that.

 

On the whole, the M8 is a joy to use if you like manual rangefinders. If you don't, then the dials and knobs of a D3 or 5d2 or whatever will float your boat more effectively. FWIW, ISO changing on the M8 is a lot less onerous and error-print than it is on my D3, where I could hit picture quality by mistake on the micro buttons provided! Nothing like shooting small JPEG when you think you're shooting RAW

 

Having said that, the M8 has its design annoyances, like any other camera. I wish to heck it had a PC synch output (it's unreal to me that it doesn't) and I wish I had shutter speed display in the viewfinder since you can rotate the shutter dial "right around" (unlike my film Ms). But that's about it, and it keeps winning design awards.

 

Yes, I wish it didn't have to use IR filters. But I'm hopeful that the next generation will not need them. And the M8 isn't alone in being less than perfect design-wise. My D3, for example, can't do the kind of simple FEC that my Canons can; I don't even try that stuff with the M8 or DMR (but then I shoot them differently). The Canons for their part couldn't manually focus very well at all (though I hear the 1ds3 has a decent VF this time 'round). I'm sure MF cameras have their quirks as well

 

So for the S2, I hope it has the simplicity of design and purpose that the M8 and DMR (because I hope those qualities are the driving factors behind the R10, which I'm personally more likely to buy).

[wildlightphoto]

I actually think the R10 is a waste of time to be honest. The competition is way to much and for what you may get Nikon and Canon will trounce it in the market with there Pro line.

 

Guy, do you realize the same was said of the DMR before anyone was able to use it?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Yes I do but in true sales it was not near the success as the M8. Now it turned out to be a wonderful camera but never truly caught on and you know how much I loved mine. But from a marketing sales perspective not a huge sustaining success to drive the market. The DSLR market is maybe the last place i would be looking for sales with Leica it is just flooded with Canon, Nikon , Sony. After the S2 comes out certainly worth a look into the market and see how it would stand. If we knew the specs it certainly would tell the story. Seriously without knowing what the specs are we are really just guessing a lot. I wanna be wrong but usually I am not far off.

[markowich]

jamie,

the m8 is -aside from what i consider design annoyances and you apparently do not- a base iso camera. i feel that the D700 offers so much more at a slightly larger size.

but... it is a matter of taste after all.

peter

 

 

Peter, in fairness, the M8 is a very good, award-winning design for manual digital photography. I couldn't care less about going into a menu to change ISO and since I don't use EV +- (it's called "shutter" and "aperture" for me) I care even less about that.

 

On the whole, the M8 is a joy to use if you like manual rangefinders. If you don't, then the dials and knobs of a D3 or 5d2 or whatever will float your boat more effectively. FWIW, ISO changing on the M8 is a lot less onerous and error-print than it is on my D3, where I could hit picture quality by mistake on the micro buttons provided! Nothing like shooting small JPEG when you think you're shooting RAW

 

Having said that, the M8 has its design annoyances, like any other camera. I wish to heck it had a PC synch output (it's unreal to me that it doesn't) and I wish I had shutter speed display in the viewfinder since you can rotate the shutter dial "right around" (unlike my film Ms). But that's about it, and it keeps winning design awards.

 

Yes, I wish it didn't have to use IR filters. But I'm hopeful that the next generation will not need them. And the M8 isn't alone in being less than perfect design-wise. My D3, for example, can't do the kind of simple FEC that my Canons can; I don't even try that stuff with the M8 or DMR (but then I shoot them differently). The Canons for their part couldn't manually focus very well at all (though I hear the 1ds3 has a decent VF this time 'round). I'm sure MF cameras have their quirks as well

 

So for the S2, I hope it has the simplicity of design and purpose that the M8 and DMR (because I hope those qualities are the driving factors behind the R10, which I'm personally more likely to buy).

[georg]

"You could also say the Panasonic fisheye lens is optimized for the D Lux4"

 

What is a Panasonic fisheye? What I'm trying to say: 645-MF-systems with smaller sensors than 645 are not more versatile (you have the "option" of different sensor sizes), they're just compromised crops.

 

When we assume that the new S-lenses will offer typical Leica-Asph/Apo-quality, the S-System will have a significant usable lens-speed-advantage over other MF-systems, no available standard-lens delivers high-quality at open aperture or slightly stopped down (2.8-4) - the 2.5/70 seems to be different, the 2.5/35 and 2.5/120 are even more unique in comparison, only a few longer lenses (like the Zeiss TPP or Schneider 2.8/180) are more or less comparable.

 

@markowich

A D700 with fixed lens is about twice as heavy and big than an M8! We might not use the full potential of the M-lenses on this cropped camera, but they're an investment into the future. The D700 (+system) is much more versatile (long lenses, speed and usable 1600-3200ASA), but it can't match the M8 on it's strengths (high-quality fast-lenses, no mirror slap, compactness). Combined with a usable zoom I even would say it's huge:

L1020363.JPG (image)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

What is a Panasonic fisheye?

 

That was about the severe barrel distortion with the D Lux 4's built in lens, Panasonic corrects it using a defisheye algorithm in RAW converters and JPEG engine ... Leica doesn't seem to be bothered to lend their trademark to such a crap anyways.

 

The 2.5/35 and 2.5/120 are even more unique in comparison, only a few longer lenses (like the Zeiss TPP or Schneider 2.8/180) are more or less comparable.

 

I've said many times but, I'll repeat once more ... you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

The Hasselblad Zeiss lenses were designed to work on a 56mm x 56mm picture frame so, a S lens with an identical FOV needs to have (56-30)/30=86.67% higher resolution vertically or (56-45)/45=24.44% higher resolution horizontally to beat it in terms of final results.

 

Not to mention Schneider lenses for Large format ... there's no comparison among them.

 

Many other people also argue that the S2 is more portable than traditional medium cameras, which is quite deceiving IMO ... keep in mind it has 37 million pixels each is as tiny as 6 microns, anyone who has played with a 15MP + camera would tell you if you want deliverable results, you're gonna mount this camera on a tripod ... just do a reality check with those 1Ds MK X and D3x shooters. How many of them don't use a tripod? so the S2's slimmer body size, lighter weight all come to a wash.

 

Lens speed, most S lenses only have a half stop advantage to the HC lenses or Mamiya 645 lenses, the HC 100 is actually a half stop faster than an equivalent S (which is the 70/2.5) and ZERO advantage to the Contax 645 lenses.

 

Speaking of effective DOF, they're almost all equivalent.

 

All comes back to square one ...

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} anyone who has played with a 15MP + camera would tell you if you want deliverable results, you're gonna mount this camera on a tripod ... just do a reality check with those 1Ds MK X and D3x shooters. How many of them don't use a tripod? so the S2's slimmer body size, lighter weight all come to a wash.

{snipped}

 

Simon, that's an odd statement to make. *None* of the 1ds3 shooters I know use a tripod for the majority of their work; the world is not made up of landscape shooters

 

I almost never used a tripod shooting my 16mp 1ds2.

 

So if the S2 (and I haven't seen one, natch) looks like it's about the same size as a d3 / d3x; given enough ISO capability, shutter speed should take care of camera shake a lot of the time (though it depends on all kinds of other stuff). But resolution alone doesn't necessitate a tripod.