S2 under pricing pressure

[jrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can absolutely guarantee that the S2, when and if it appears, will make photos of brilliant image quality, given a competent operator. I'm not sure they can sell enough of them to make a profitable business. My feeling is that the price is probably going to have to be around $12,000 if they want to sell any number of them -- they can charge somewhat more than a D3x or a 1DsIII, but not a huge amount more, because for most end users, who are willing and able to spend this amount of money, the system and support differences will outweigh differences in image quality.

 

Doug Herr makes great bird photos, but he is nothing like a working pro who has to show up at 8 o'clock Monday morning where a shooting studio, two cars, six models, two ad execs and three assistants are waiting to produce a magazine spread. If Doug's camera has to be sent back to Solms, the birds don't care; and they'll still be there when the camera gets back, and they won't charge him or fire him because the camera wasn't working...

 

Despite what the apologists here say, Leica does not have a good outreach and service system. They may have nice people in their service department, but two-week or three-week or six-week turn-around for repairs, at one facility in the world, is not going to work for a pro. A pro needs to be able to send his camera for repairs, and get it back quickly, and to have a rental available NOW. I see no signs that Leica is creating such a system, or is even capable of creating such a system. In my experience with Leica repairs in the US, I began to suspect that they did not even have a computer system with which to log and track their work. With the S2, it looks to me like Leica is creating something more along the lines of an R10, a standard big DSLR which they plan to support and service with exactly the same system they use for the R series. That is, send it back to Solms and we'll let you know.

 

There are some jobs where an extremely-high mp back is useful -- the large photo posters used by fashion retailers in their store windows, for example. But there are no commercial magazines in which, looking at a high-end advertisement, an ordinary intelligent reader could readily pick up the difference between a D3x and a 65mp MF back. It seems to me that in the photo-poster case, the need is for the maximum megapixels, because you're talking about a 20-foot tall print; in the magazine case, you need nothing more than, really, twelve mp or so, although you can now get 24 mp for $3,000, in a Sony A900. So the question is, where does the Leica fit? It gives you neither the maximum, nor the optimum.

 

In fact, what it gives you, I think, is what the M8 gives us -- a really good camera that a certain kind of person likes, and which shows all kinds of old-world craftsmanship, but which shows little evidence of being able to support a viable business for the longer term, and which we'll all remember with great fondness when it's gone.

 

JC

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

But there are no commercial magazines in which, looking at a high-end advertisement, an ordinary intelligent reader could readily pick up the difference between a D3x and a 65mp MF back.

 

Or a cell phone.

 

This morning I was at an ad agency and they showed me a client's mailer that they prepared using some of the first images I shot with a 5DII. Well after adjusting every prop in each room, sweeping the carpet to remove any marks, removing the outlets, switches, vents and doing other retouching, the largest image was maybe 4 inches across.

[ptomsu]

Great thoughts Alan and JC!

 

I use a 5D2 myself and I also am using a M8 heavily with all different kind of latest M glass. My favorite M lenses are the 2/28ASPH, the 1.4/40ASPH and the 2/75APO and together with these lenses the M8 performs marvelous.

 

But the 5D2 with L lenses is at least as good from an overall quality but of course much more detail. So I start finding all this hype about Leica and their stellar performance just a bit of nonsense. Of course Leica produces excellent results if used correctly and by an experienced photographer, as does the Canon - maybe you on not need so much experience as for the M8

 

But the real beauty of MF and MFDBs is that you get besides a larger sensor area also much more flexibility. Folks, just face it, Phase sells the P65+ now since almost 6 months (maybe even longer). That means, as soon as the S2 will become available Phase has already a year or so experience with 60MP and Sensor+ etc. But Leica just starts. Not to forget that Phase is also developing the SW which Leica obviously will reuse for their S2, as they already do for the M8. So who has more experience here? And Phase will already go for their next iteration - I personally do hope not more MP but better use of 60MP in terms of IQ, speed, ISO etc. And you can use this back on any tech camera. What can one do with the S2? Just again locked into a small system by Leica, with support by nobody else than Leica.

 

With a Mamiya or Hy6 or H2 or name it one can use several backs of several manufacturers. If I decide that Leaf backs are better suited for my work than Phase backs its just a "small" investment and I am on the Leaf train as well. Or Sinar, or what else.....

 

The point is, for this huge amount of money I want to get maximum flexibility, freedom etc etc. And the other point is that you should not expect too many miracles from the S2 and the S glass, as this just is not going to happen. because also other digital MF systems already deliver stellar performance.

 

And I do not even touch the price point (I assume Leica will be in the high ranges) as well as the support point - where I also miss anything happening from Leica, which we already should start to see now slowly. Because when the S System is introduced and shipped, it will be too late to start convincing Pros and other potential users about the perfect operation of their support structure. I personally fear this will be again something comparable to their support so far, which is good for amateurs who are willing to wait and have endless time, but not for the pro market where Leica clearly is targeting the S system.

[georg]

I'm sorry but I don't see any significant difference in resolution. The cage shows a bit more detail but it is a rare high-contrast-subject. Combining detail from the outer zones and lower contrast areas lead up to a different picture (overall information in the whole image).

 

I've made a few shots with the 50D, the pixel-pitch is simply too small. even under ideal circumstances the L-lenses have trouble achieving decent contrast.

 

The M8 is just the first version of a digital M, the lenses are the real investment and they are capable of Full-Frame unlike any other 35mm-lens-line-up I've ever seen. Right now it's a tiny system (but not very light) with high IQ - the S2 is a different beast.

 

@ptomsu

New sensor-architectures are introduced every 3 or 4 years by DALSA or Kodak, there will be no significant Improvement over the now new 6 micrometer-architecture soon. But the Mamiya-lenses are great and as good as the S-Lenses when you can't see the difference between your M-lenses and Canon...

[ptomsu]

I'm sorry but I don't see any significant difference in resolution. The cage shows a bit more detail but it is a rare high-contrast-subject. Combining detail from the outer zones and lower contrast areas lead up to a different picture (overall information in the whole image).

 

I've made a few shots with the 50D, the pixel-pitch is simply too small. even under ideal circumstances the L-lenses have trouble achieving decent contrast.

 

The M8 is just the first version of a digital M, the lenses are the real investment and they are capable of Full-Frame unlike any other 35mm-lens-line-up I've ever seen. Right now it's a tiny system (but not very light) with high IQ - the S2 is a different beast.

 

Well, hope never dies

[georg]

I'm sorry but I don't see any significant difference in resolution. The cage shows a bit more detail but it is a rare high-contrast-subject. Combining detail from the outer zones and lower contrast areas lead up to a different picture (overall information in the whole image).

 

I've made a few shots with the 50D, the pixel-pitch is simply too small. even under ideal circumstances the L-lenses have trouble achieving decent contrast.

 

The M8 is just the first version of a digital M, the lenses are the real investment and they are capable of Full-Frame unlike any other 35mm-lens-line-up I've ever seen. Right now it's a tiny system (but not very light) with high IQ - the S2 is a different beast.

[JeffWright]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yeah, yeah. You were not there, you said things obviously wrong and yet you are still right somewhere.

We know the drill

 

What would you know about me and where I was? While I'm sure that virtually every early adopter of an M8 had used M systems before (duh), I doubt most were also DMR users. Sure some were...a few notables like Guy and a few others on this side of the Atlantic come to mind. I was using the DMR and Canon at the time, as well as M7s.

 

When the M8 came out, I was in the queue for a body, but cancelled the order as a lot of the problems came out. Indeed a number of my friends and acquaintances reported on those initial problems here and on other public forums. I own an M8 now, but only took that step quite cautiously, with much less enthusiasm than I did in November 2006. So, dude, I guess I was there, but you know everything, so I didn't need to tell you that.

 

I still stand by my earlier statement that many of the people that went to the M8 as early adopters had dSLR experience with Canon and Nikon. And I stand by my statement that Leica was blind-sided by the IR issue. Maybe they knew about it but didn't understand their market. Am I right? Uh yeah, most of the time, it's a required part of my job.

[AlanG]

I'm sorry but I don't see any significant difference in resolution. The cage shows a bit more detail but it is a rare high-contrast-subject.

 

I presume you are referring to my test shots. The chimney screen may not be a good area to look at as the sky behind it changes.

 

By the way, the 45 TS-E gets cropped by the FF sensor. There is the possibility that another lens would do better on the 5DII. (I was trying to match focal lengths and didn't want to use a zoom.)

 

Maybe this will help:

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!

[lct]

Not fair to compare the M8 to the 5D2 IMHO. Would be interesting to do the same test with a 5D instead.

[carstenw]

lct, the 5D is also there now. IMO the 5D images lack punch and detail, which I also personally observed as I transitioned from 5D to M8. Ultimately, the 5D held a tiny advantage in actual resolution, in so far as distant text might have rendered better. However, the M8 images almost always had a more pleasing look, and yes Alan, right out of the box, whereas I was almost always spending significant time processing the 5D images. The 5D is a great camera, but I liked the M8 much better.

 

The 5D2 has so much more resolution that comparing is not that interesting; you can easily see that it resolves more, but I don't think it resolves 2.1x more, just perhaps 1.5x more. The AA filter kills the look of images for me, and I will not consider a Canon or Nikon again until this is dealt with. The Sony A900 appears to hold up to close scrutiny a little better, as long as you don't use ACR or LR to process.

[AlanG]

Not fair to compare the M8 to the 5D2 IMHO. Would be interesting to do the same test with a 5D instead.

 

Why is it not fair?

 

My original page had all three cameras compared although my original test was the 5DII and the M8 so I did the 5D an hour later. Remember, I was being told that I perhaps was shortchanging my clients by going for "adequate" quality instead of "optimal quality." So I figured I should check it out. (Perhaps "optimal" quality in my case would be a Betterlight scan back on 4x5.)

 

But my overall point was to understand if the AA filter made much difference. I consider this a decent "user" test but it is not a scientific test.

 

OK go to this link to see the M8 and 5D images uprezzed:

 

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

[AlanG]

The 5D2 has so much more resolution that comparing is not that interesting; you can easily see that it resolves more, but I don't think it resolves 2.1x more, just perhaps 1.5x more.

 

The 5D shot was made in different light so only judge the detail not the "look." Besides I did not try to adjust the images to have the exact same look, although I think I could come close if I wanted to try that and if they were shot at the same time. I just wanted them within a reasonable range to show resolution. There was no IR filter on the lens - that would be a factor in the color of the foliage - and perhaps other things. (I did not want to risk reducing sharpness to match the color. And I only wanted to test one thing.)

 

I was not getting into who likes this look more than who likes that look. Obviously between different scenes, different cameras, different lenses, different atmospheric conditions, different camera settings, different raw converters, different operators, all kinds of results are possible. And we all have different eyes and sensibilities.

 

I was trying to do a simple comparison of unsharpened vs. sharpened files - using lenses, f stops, and a subject that would be conducive to that test. Don't try to read more into it. The unsharpened images show up in C1 a certain way, and the sharpened images come out another. It is part of the normal process with the M8 and the Canons. From what I can see, the M8 seems to require about 75% of the sharpening of the Canons to get maximum detail without looking oversharpened. Your preferences are just that - preferences. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)

 

21.1 vs 12.8 megapixels would not quite be 1.5 times the resolution. 2X would require 51.2 megapixels to double the resolution of the 5D. (Assuming the lens is not the limitation, which it almost surely would be.)

 

Even though I have a 5DII, I shoot some jobs and personal photos on lower res. cameras. I really don't want 63+ meg tiffs (or 130 meg 16 bit tiffs) from all of my photos. To tell you truth, if I were not shooting for a living, I'd probably only own an M8 and/or a consumer DSLR plus a small p&s. (Or maybe just the p&s.)

 

My favorite camera to use is a small automatic p&s and I'd probably be happy with any of the decent models of them. Unlike some of you, my challenge is to put away all of the technical stuff that I know and just shoot pictures working on lighting, expression, and composition. It is kind of liberating to do that within the confines of a simple automatic camera. Normally, I have a whole truckload of gear.

 

In any case the real comparison will be the S2 vs. 5DII, D3X and A900. By then there will probably be a 30-50 megapixel 1DsIV

[wildlightphoto]

But my overall point was to understand if the AA filter made much difference. I consider this a decent "user" test but it is not a scientific test.

 

If you want to test the effect of the AA filter then you need to eliminate all the other variables. There's a discussion of removing the AA filter from the 5D here:

 

Remove AA filter? - Luminous Landscape Forum

[AlanG]

If you want to test the effect of the AA filter then you need to eliminate all the other variables. There's a discussion of removing the AA filter from the 5D here:

 

Remove AA filter? - Luminous Landscape Forum

 

I didn't want to get rid of all the variables as I am comparing one camera system to another, not building my own camera. Nor do I want to get too wonky with this.

 

Despite what you may think, I'm not that into testing cameras. It's just that after two years I never saw a direct comparison of sharpened and unsharpened files from the M8 and other cameras. But there were a lot of opinions. If I shot most things with any of those cameras, I'd probably be happy. And so would my clients. But a 20+ megapixel FF sensor, live view, clip-on EVF, and some TS lenses for the M9 or "R10" would be nice if I wanted to shoot architecture with one. If anything, Leica is forcing me to use a Canon

 

From my little comparison, I just learned enough to see that the M8 files needed sharpening and so did the 5D and 5DII files. After sharpening they each produced about the amount of detail one would expect from their respective sensors. I gave the M8 less sharpening than the 5D and 5DII as I agreed with the default setting in C1 for both cameras. But when I get time, I think I'll add a bit more sharpening to the M8 file and compare again.

 

After looking at the M8 files before sharpening, I can't understand all the fuss about not having an AA filter. The Mamiya ZD had a removable AA filter so there must be a comparison for that somewhere. I heard a rumor yesterday that Mamiya was going to be making a similar camera to the ZD - with upgraded sensor and electronics. Doesn't that figure by now? If true, the S2 might have some more competition.

 

Now that I'm convinced that the AA filter isn't that big a deal for reducing sharpness, someone should get around to testing the different cameras for moire.

[wildlightphoto]

Now that I'm convinced that the AA filter isn't that big a deal for reducing sharpness...

 

Alan, you've got too many variables in your comparison to reach this conclusion.

[wattsy]

There are some jobs where an extremely-high mp back is useful -- the large photo posters used by fashion retailers in their store windows, for example. But there are no commercial magazines in which, looking at a high-end advertisement, an ordinary intelligent reader could readily pick up the difference between a D3x and a 65mp MF back.

 

Actually, you'd be surprised at how little resolution is needed for these kind of in-store displays - no matter how large they are. I also disagree about the ads in commercial magazines. You can often tell whether an image was likely shot on a 'larger than 35mm' format just by the 'look' of the shot. It has little to do with resolution.

 

I'm surprised at how any discussion of medium format digital always seems to hinge on resolution - as if that's the only reason you might want to use the larger format. In reality (and the same applied back in the 'film days') you would often choose medium (or large) format for the different look it gives. This has little to do with how much detail gets resolved and more to do with tonality and the kind of spatial relationship of subject/background that comes about from using longer lenses to get a given field of view (as when compared with the 35mm equivalent). When you use a Pentax 67 handheld you are not doing so for the extra resolution but, instead, for the particular look that you get from using 'longer' lenses and a bigger piece of film. Similarly, you wouldn't necessarily shoot a 10x8 portrait for the extra detail.

 

There are other valid reasons to shoot with medium format too - usually bigger brighter viewfinders, often more robust simplified build, and it's a camera that the client is less likely to own to shoot photos of his wife and dog, etc. All these things can matter and have little to do with detail and resolution.

[t024484]

Resizing is not the way to go when comparing different.sensors.

Resizing does not do any justice to the original picture. Just as a test, downsize the resized picture to its original size, compare it to the original, and see how much you have lost in the process.

 

In the march issue of Camera Magazine, www,cameranet.nl, test where performed with the 5DII and the m8.2.

These test made extensive use of the highly regarded Imatest software.

The uncorrected ( meaning without sharpening) MTF(50) in the centre of the picture was 2181 LW/PH for the 5DII, and 2016 LW/PH for the M8.2.

The weighted average all over the picture was 1929 LW/PH for the 5DII and 2014 for the M8.2.

Shots where taken with ISO 100 for the Canon and ISO 160 for the Leica, so the Leica had a slight disadvantage here.

MTF(50) is well explained at Imatest - Welcome to Imatest.

 

As a matter of fact, in the same magazine the uncorrected MTF(50) for the D3X was 2290 LP/PH.

These figures show that the M8.2 without AA Filter, performs quite well against cameras with more Pixels.

 

Hans

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Actually, you'd be surprised at how little resolution is needed for these kind of in-store displays - no matter how large they are. I also disagree about the ads in commercial magazines. You can often tell whether an image was likely shot on a 'larger than 35mm' format just by the 'look' of the shot. It has little to do with resolution.

 

I'm surprised at how any discussion of medium format digital always seems to hinge on resolution - as if that's the only reason you might want to use the larger format. In reality (and the same applied back in the 'film days') you would often choose medium (or large) format for the different look it gives. This has little to do with how much detail gets resolved and more to do with tonality and the kind of spatial relationship of subject/background that comes about from using longer lenses to get a given field of view (as when compared with the 35mm equivalent). When you use a Pentax 67 handheld you are not doing so for the extra resolution but, instead, for the particular look that you get from using 'longer' lenses and a bigger piece of film. Similarly, you wouldn't necessarily shoot a 10x8 portrait for the extra detail.

 

There are other valid reasons to shoot with medium format too - usually bigger brighter viewfinders, often more robust simplified build, and it's a camera that the client is less likely to own to shoot photos of his wife and dog, etc. All these things can matter and have little to do with detail and resolution.

 

 

Well said and a big understatement that always get's left out of these conversations. It is not always about resolution it is about DR, Tonality, Look and functionality of the larger format. Sure resolution is important to some degree but more important than pure numbers is also pure detail that gets resolved in any media used. Bottom line how I look at MF is it is a no excuses system. Clients do all sorts of stuff to your files , one day you think the shoot is for the web and the next it turns out to be a banner 60 ft wide. It has happened so many times that it has come down to a no excuse system for me . This is the best there is Period to a client. We all are forgetting the selling factor of your abilities as well including your output. I agree with Ian you just don't realize how important it is sometimes that you have something no client has. Trust me I use this all day long in my selling factor and it is a big benefit. Bottom line clients get impressed that you spend 30k on a system to produce work. Sounds lame as a duck but they figure if you spend that kind of money it has to be good. Funny thing is you be surprised how many actually think that and that is part of you selling yourself for work. It's not far from the truth, obviously ability is more important overall but having great gear does impress. Sorry folks you can argue all day long until the cows come home but MF digital rocks the house and no 35mm is even in the same ballpark. You can get close to some degree and some systems do but it will never get there. There is just a different look to MF at least my eye's see it. The closet systems I have seen is the DMR and the M8 is pretty much behind that. Canon and Nikon do a nice job and a valid system but that AA filter is like putting a screen door in front of your view and bugs the hell out of me. But I will say the 35mm systems are actually starting to get better but I do think they are at there saturation point as well.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

Alan, you've got too many variables in your comparison to reach this conclusion.

 

I concluded that the lack of one did not make the out of camera M8 files so much sharper. Nor did the inclusion of one keep the 5DII from resolving a lot of detail. That's all I really need to know.

[wildlightphoto]

I concluded that the lack of one did not make the out of camera M8 files so much sharper. Nor did the inclusion of one keep the 5DII from resolving a lot of detail. That's all I really need to know.

 

Yes, your comparison was of the total system, not of particular design features of the cameras.