S2 under pricing pressure

[ptomsu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It does seem the new wave in Sensors is shifting to Dalsa. Kodak did have a pretty strong hold on it for quite sometime. All the Leica products are Kodak. I do like the Kodak sensors myself and I do hope they hang in there. They still have the new Hassy 50 and S2 in there camp as far as new product but as we see Phase a strong Kodak buyer in the past has shifted 2 of there new backs to Dalsa. Right now you can buy either a Dalsa back and Kodak backs. One bad thing on Dalsa is long exposures the best you can get is 1 minute. Kodak the P45+ and P30+ you can go a full hour and I believe the S2 will get in this range. Something to think about when buying depending on what type of shooting you do. For most folks 1 minute is enough but landscape shooters may lean more to the Kodak for those night shots. Admittedly I have not gone much over 1 minute myself but I have tried much longer. If you have a 30 minute shot remember you also have a 30 minute dark frame to go with it. So that is a total hour just for a 30 minute shot. Patience grasshopper but it is fun to shoot the stars . LOL

 

Dalsa does look to have wider DR to it also over the Kodak and DR is very important and severely lacking in 35mm. MF is a world of difference here. They can post all the numbers and DXO tests they want but trust me it ain't even close to MF with either type of sensor. Also at this point Dalsa make the biggest sensor between them with the P65 which is TRULY Full Frame 645.

 

The new Hassi 60MP back, coming in July, will be based on a Dalsa sensor - I think the same one which Phase already uses in their P65+

 

Not sure why Leica did not count on Dalsa sensors at least for the S2?

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Let me tag onto my previous post. At PMA and I will say this load and clear because I am no question about it a C1 fan, but Leica is thinking of doing there own software for the S2 and not use C1. Too me this just shut the door on buying a S2 if they did this. NO question about it C1 has taken years to get to a point with software and the same for lightroom/ACR and every other Raw processing software on the planet to get up to speed. If Leica thinks they can put a software product out with the S2 that is fully mature than my hat is off to them but my opinion no chance in hell they can do it without serious help. I think this is a big mistake and makes it also a proprietary software. So if you shoot Nikon , Canon you will wind up using 2 different software packages and following Hassy with Phocus down this path of being proprietary is a dangerous walk. This is my opinion and my BIGGEST bitch if they do this and I said so load and clear at PMA to anyone within earshot of my voice which was not whispering. Now I don't know if they will follow through with this but they asked me and I told them.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

The new Hassi 60MP back, coming in July, will be based on a Dalsa sensor - I think the same one which Phase already uses in their P65+

 

Not sure why Leica did not count on Dalsa sensors at least for the S2?

 

Thanks Peter I forgot that one coming. Hard to remember them all

[wlaidlaw]

Let me tag onto my previous post. At PMA and I will say this load and clear because I am no question about it a C1 fan, but Leica is thinking of doing there own software for the S2 and not use C1. Too me this just shut the door on buying a S2 if they did this. NO question about it C1 has taken years to get to a point with software and the same for lightroom/ACR and every other Raw processing software on the planet to get up to speed. If Leica thinks they can put a software product out with the S2 that is fully mature than my hat is off to them but my opinion no chance in hell they can do it without serious help. I think this is a big mistake and makes it also a proprietary software. So if you shoot Nikon , Canon you will wind up using 2 different software packages and following Hassy with Phocus down this path of being proprietary is a dangerous walk. This is my opinion and my BIGGEST bitch if they do this and I said so load and clear at PMA to anyone within earshot of my voice which was not whispering. Now I don't know if they will follow through with this but they asked me and I told them.

 

Guy,

 

I really cannot believe that Leica would dump Phase after having made such a song and dance at Photokina about their special relationship and how Phase was involved as various stages of the design of the S2. Mind you all companies get the idea from time to time, that they can do another company's business cheaper and better than they can. It usually ends in tears.

 

I fully agree with you about having one RAW developer. I have been pleading in vain with both Ricoh and Phase for over a year now, to get their act together and do some profiles for the GRII and GX200. I hate ACR, which is the one that works best currently with the GX200. Having to use two developers for one day's shoot is a nonsense. C1 has developed into a superb product.

 

Wilson

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I totally agree no question. It was not something I wanted to hear and hopefully they dumped the idea. C1 has taken years to get to this level of raw processor and I still think it has some room to grow but all of the Raw convertors from all sources have gone through many revisions and starting with a fresh camera and fresh software sounds nice but all I see is trouble in those waters. We will certainly have to see what they do on this. I understand there concern about a competitor running there files but C1 does for many companies. I see it as a non issue

[carstenw]

I can see that P1 might not want to open C1 to another MF competitor though. All other supported cameras are 35mm-FF and smaller. I can also see that Leica might not want to help fix their competitors leaf shutter lens woes, and so on. I am not sure what they agreed on at all, come to think of it.

[dfarkas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let me tag onto my previous post. At PMA and I will say this load and clear because I am no question about it a C1 fan, but Leica is thinking of doing there own software for the S2 and not use C1. Too me this just shut the door on buying a S2 if they did this. NO question about it C1 has taken years to get to a point with software and the same for lightroom/ACR and every other Raw processing software on the planet to get up to speed. If Leica thinks they can put a software product out with the S2 that is fully mature than my hat is off to them but my opinion no chance in hell they can do it without serious help. I think this is a big mistake and makes it also a proprietary software. So if you shoot Nikon , Canon you will wind up using 2 different software packages and following Hassy with Phocus down this path of being proprietary is a dangerous walk. This is my opinion and my BIGGEST bitch if they do this and I said so load and clear at PMA to anyone within earshot of my voice which was not whispering. Now I don't know if they will follow through with this but they asked me and I told them.

 

I think they (Leica) were saying that they would like to use C1, but that this hinged on the level of Phase One's cooperation. If Phase sees the S2 as a serious competitor that they now have no part of, in design, manufacture or distribution, they may not want to work with Leica. And, if they do work with Leica, what is to motivate them to provide the very best conversion from the S2? This was the question being raised at PMA.

 

I agree that it would be a shame for the S2 not to be supported in C1, but this decision seems to be in Phase's court, not Leica's. It could also prove to be a short-sighted move for Phase, as Leica is their single largest customer of C1. Every single M8, M8.2, and D-Lux 4 come bundled with a C1 license. This relationship (the one that was stressed at Photokina) earns a lot of Euros for Phase.

 

Remember, C1 doesn't support MFDBs from competitors (Hassy, Sinar, Leaf). When Leica was just making small format cameras like the M8 and DMR, there was no head-to-head. They might be thinking about the S2 differently.

 

As an alternative, Lightroom was given as a possible option for bundled software. I'm sure Adobe wouldn't mind the extra revenue. Additionally, Stephan Shulz said that any software capable of reading a DNG could be used for S2 files (Lightroom, ACR, Aperture, Raw Developer, etc.) as proprietary software wasn't needed for lens corrections.

 

This open RAW file format approach has allowed Leica some options here. Ultimately, we'll have to see if Phase plays ball on the software front, in spite of the hardware competition. I seriously doubt that Leica will want to try and reinvent the wheel and write their own software, especially when DNG files are so widely supported.

 

David

[dfarkas]

Guy,

 

I really cannot believe that Leica would dump Phase after having made such a song and dance at Photokina about their special relationship and how Phase was involved as various stages of the design of the S2.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson,

 

Leica has stressed this point again and again. Phase One has had zero involvement in the development of the S2. It was designed 100% in-house with collaboration from Kodak on the sensor and Fujitsu on the MAESTRO chip.

 

It was Phase One USA and certain Phase dealers that spread the rumor about involvement in the S2. I think the strongest evidence was that at Photokina, Lightroom was being used to show S2 files. At the LFI fashion shoot, Aperture was used. Also, two S2 product managers, and multiple exces from Leica told me directly that Phase hadn't had any involvement at all in the S2.

 

David

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I think they (Leica) were saying that they would like to use C1, but that this hinged on the level of Phase One's cooperation. If Phase sees the S2 as a serious competitor that they now have no part of, in design, manufacture or distribution, they may not want to work with Leica. And, if they do work with Leica, what is to motivate them to provide the very best conversion from the S2? This was the question being raised at PMA.

 

I agree that it would be a shame for the S2 not to be supported in C1, but this decision seems to be in Phase's court, not Leica's. It could also prove to be a short-sighted move for Phase, as Leica is their single largest customer of C1. Every single M8, M8.2, and D-Lux 4 come bundled with a C1 license. This relationship (the one that was stressed at Photokina) earns a lot of Euros for Phase.

 

Remember, C1 doesn't support MFDBs from competitors (Hassy, Sinar, Leaf). When Leica was just making small format cameras like the M8 and DMR, there was no head-to-head. They might be thinking about the S2 differently.

 

As an alternative, Lightroom was given as a possible option for bundled software. I'm sure Adobe wouldn't mind the extra revenue. Additionally, Stephan Shulz said that any software capable of reading a DNG could be used for S2 files (Lightroom, ACR, Aperture, Raw Developer, etc.) as proprietary software wasn't needed for lens corrections.

 

This open RAW file format approach has allowed Leica some options here. Ultimately, we'll have to see if Phase plays ball on the software front, in spite of the hardware competition. I seriously doubt that Leica will want to try and reinvent the wheel and write their own software, especially when DNG files are so widely supported.

 

David

 

 

The unfortunate part of all this is we just don't know what is going on behind closed doors in these executive meetings. If Phase is not involved at all than what was the announcement about in the first place. So somewhere along the line there had to be some talk on what is what and what it will all mean. Not sure the ball is in Phases court either, Leica is paranoid too that Phase will not do a good job on the S2 files. They need to sit down and work it all out between them for the best interest of both of them. That info does not trickle down to any public level either until it is a done deal. Have to wait and see how this play's out.

[ynp]

Why do I need C1 software with the S2 DNGs (If I shoot untethered to the cards on locations)? The S2 is supposed to shoot DNG and it can be opened in Any RAW developer as the DNG is an open standard.

 

Perhaps I am missing something, and CaptureOne has some special profiles for Leica files. Excuse my ignorance, I have no experience with Leica cameras and the S2 is the first Leica product which is of interest to me.

 

Yevgeny

Moscow

P.S. I cannot see myself being limited to using only one raw software with my DNG files.

[georg]

Yes, I think it's about the profiles which can be created with not too much effort.

 

I can't imagine Leica developing a software like C1 or Aperture, but it would be nice to have another option - both run not too stable (big albums), neither on my Mac or my PC.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Why do I need C1 software with the S2 DNGs (If I shoot untethered to the cards on locations)? The S2 is supposed to shoot DNG and it can be opened in Any RAW developer as the DNG is an open standard.

 

Perhaps I am missing something, and CaptureOne has some special profiles for Leica files. Excuse my ignorance, I have no experience with Leica cameras and the S2 is the first Leica product which is of interest to me.

 

Yevgeny

Moscow

P.S. I cannot see myself being limited to using only one raw software with my DNG files.

 

As it is today the best files for the DMR and M8 always seemed better with C1 and the profiles made for it. Lightroom is a nice program but for some folks C1 is there choice of software. I actually took LR off my system . I hated it with my Phase files. In all honesty C1 may not be the best as far as workflow or features but always produced the best images. That is debatable of course but every cam I ever owned and that is many and many different systems C1 just does a better job of it. This is something after many years of digital that I have come to this conclusion and something that folks should test for themselves. I would not want to buy a S2 and switch for one and i would not buy a S2 if Leica came out with there own. I refuse to be a guinea pig not only with the camera but with the software as well, no thanks. I want a stable running software platform with any new camera to make any learning curve much simpler. In all honesty working with one program and getting to know that program in and out is simply much better than jumping around to different programs and trying to be a expert at all of them. Rather be a expert at one and handle any type of files I throw at it. Now that is me, some folks don't care or prefer LR and that is fine. Do what is the most comfortable for you. I prefer C1

[AlanG]

...For years, large format images in magazines, books and in posters have appeared much sharper and livelier in terms of the printed image to me. Medium format still fairly easy to spot against 35mm. And digital? Most of the time it is *very* easy for me to spot over a film image.

 

So there you have it, another set of opinions based on real world experience...

 

I don't think it is within my point of discussion to compare different film photos of different subjects in different formats by different photographers in different books. Of course these will look different and you probably will prefer one look to another. I was speaking of my normal workflow of shooting film and scanning it with my equipment and making 24x36 inch prints from those scans. Then I compared them with 24x36 inch prints from the same image shot with the 1Ds.

 

Here are 900 pixel wide images of the same subject shot with the 1Ds and also on 6x9 film.

 

The 1Ds file was made with a 16-35 Series 1 zoom at f7.1 It is an in camera jpeg file that had very little adjustment made to it. So it was very quick to produce. This is an 11 megapixel camera that produces about 33 megabyte 8 bit tifs. Note that this shot is a bit wider than the 6x9 shot.

 

The 6x9 was made on Veliva 50 with a 65mm f4.5 Grandagon on a Linhof Technikardan. It probably was shot around f11. I then scanned it with my Polaroid Sprintscan 120 (same as a Microtek scanner) at 4000 dpi 8 bit tif. This produced a 325 megabyte file that is more than twice as large as the file from a 50 megapixel back. (Though probably not as detailed.) This is a 29x43 inch image at 300 dpi. I don't think there is a different "look" between the two shots other than the color and film grain.

 

The Polaroid software is not very good and I didn't try Silverfast. But I really couldn't get the 6x9 shot to have the same color as the 1Ds shot. (The film looks closer to the scan than it does to the 1Ds file.) If I take out any more green, the sky will be purple. I'm sure I could get it better if I really worked on it. It took about 20 minutes to prescan, adjust and then do a hi res scan. There is a lot of dust that needs to be spotted because I used a glass holder for maximum sharpness.

 

OK so I then cropped a section of the 6x9 file. And I interpolated up the little 11 megapixel 1Ds file 400% making it a 525 megabyte file which would be 36x54 inches at 300 dpi. (The 1Ds file is at a disadvantage because it started out wider thus needed more magnification.)

 

Now of course the 6x9 file has more detail, but in my opinion, it only becomes a factor at very large sizes when viewed up close such as at 100% on a monitor. If you consider what a 21 megapixel FF DSLR with a prime lens could do, it will be even closer. And you have all of the grain and dust from the film. My point to this is that a lot of jobs can be shot with a 35mm FF DSLR. And stitching is always an option for more detail on this type of subject.

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!

[ptomsu]

My thoughts about SW:

 

While I am using C1 Pro since almost 5 years, I did not use it for a while when LR and Aperture came to market, because I preferred the easiness and capabilities of LR and later Aperture2 above C1 3.x ....

 

Now C1 4.x being available I started trying this again - AND SURPRISE - all my files I have from my DMR and my M8 look much better when I only open them in C1 and even better when I do some processing on them.

 

So yes. C1 is a very special RAW converter, not only for DNG files and Leica, but also for all DSLRs available today. See the same thing on my Nikon and Canon and Olympus DSLR RAW files. No better RAW quality - period. Aperture and LR far from coming close!

 

What I like about Aperture is the great capability of managing your photos in a very good database system, which - as Apple user - I am very familiar with and which makes archiving and storing very easy - much easier compared to C1 (and LR and others).

 

But the achievable IQ with C1 and the easiness and effectiveness of processing in C1 is far superior and argument enough for me to continue using C1 in the future. I will work around the missing database functionality somehow and am sure I can live with it.

 

Now one of the most silly things for Leica would be not to continue with C1, they would simply loose the top performing RAW conversion! PERIOD! Of course one can use LR, Aperture or others to process DNG files, but far from the quality you achieve with C1. Why is this the case? I do not know, but this is what I see every day on my high resolution Eizo Screen in a calibrate workflow. And there are no excuses.

 

I think this was also the main reason what Leica made partner with C1 and try to have this support also for the S2.

 

It is definitely not easy to build excellent processing SW and even Apple cannot outperform C1 on their own platforms and their own operating system, which handles RAWs directly. Not even talking about LR and PS which are good, but also inferior to C and in my opinion (call it personal view) also to Aperture.

 

For me a complete digital system is split in 3 more or less equal parts:

 

1) Camera

2) Lenses

3) Processing SW (RAW conversion - not even talking about any corrections here)

 

If one of these pices sucks, the whole system sucks.

 

Finally in the end of the day C1 has become so important for me, that I have the feeling it will determine my future purchase of a MF system. And if the S2 will not fully be supported by C1 it is a clear NO for the S System in my case.

 

Just my 5c

[ptomsu]

Another thought I discussed on the Leica - Phase relationship with an Austrian dealer:

 

There are rumors that there will be much more cooperation between the 2 companies as just SW. This rumors say that Leica might develop (adapt) lenses for the Phase (Mamiya) system. In my eyes this would make some sense as this would definitely bring the world's best glass in front of the Phase backs. And create a good revenue stream for Leica as the installed (used) base of Phase back on Mamiya cameras is huge and would become even larger through this cooperation.

 

What if Leica does not want to position the S System as a competitor to a real MF system like Phase or Hasselbald? What if the really wanted to create the right compact but stellar quality DSLR system - a new Leica format - which allows them to offer high end DSLRs which are kind of the missing link between MF and 35? And have then another evenue stream from the real MF market y bringing Phase to a new level with their Leica optics?

 

Maybe I am dreaming too much, but I definitely did not smoke anything

[sdai]

Buckle up, folks ... I've got a feeling that Phase and Leica will clash head on. Now Phase has taken a controlling stake in Mamiya, it's only a matter of time when they'll build a ZD Mk 2.

[sdai]

To Alan ... what you're doing with 35mm is quite interesting and has always fascinated me. I wish I could have more time to actually walk out and experiment more.

 

People who do not do this type of work will have a hard time to understand that MF and LF will also have their limitations.

 

Besides all you have mentioned about, with cropped 645 not to mention true FF 645 digital at a pixel density of 6 micron or even smaller, diffraction will kick in at f/11 or even earlier, the highest end optics will not do any good. You're gonna go nuts with the decent dof you want.

[AlanG]

...And have then another evenue stream from the real MF market y bringing Phase to a new level with their Leica optics?

 

Maybe I am dreaming too much, but I definitely did not smoke anything

 

It is hard for me to see how these companies could be competitors on one hand and work together on the other. It makes sense for Leica to develop some kind of software and firmware capability in house. Being dependent on a competitor would make them pretty vulnerable.

 

They really just need to make very good tethering and browsing software for the S2 as well as any kind of special lens optimization in the firmware. Besides, I may be wrong but if Leica makes its own C1 profiles for the S2, won't the S2 DNG files work in C1? Maybe just tether the camera to a hot folder that gets automatically refreshed in C-1. Other cameras can work this way.

 

Separately, Leica would probably have to make lenses that cover a larger image circle in order to work on the Phase One camera. It seems unlikely to me that they'll make two lines of MF lenses. I can't see Leica helping Phase One sell cameras. Why couldn't Phase One simply buy some Zeiss or Schneider MF glass if they felt they needed better quality?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

To Alan ... what you're doing with 35mm is quite interesting and has always fascinated me. I wish I could have more time to actually walk out and experiment more.

 

People who do not do this type of work will have a hard time to understand that MF and LF will also have their limitations.

 

Besides all you have mentioned about, with cropped 645 not to mention true FF 645 digital at a pixel density of 6 micron or even smaller, diffraction will kick in at f/11 or even earlier, the highest end optics will not do any good. You're gonna go nuts with the decent dof you want.

 

Thanks, the picture I posted was the last job I shot on film - about 4 years ago. I carried the 4x5 and 35 systems and two tripods up about 8 stories on a construction site - crawling under a bunch of stuff on the roof. The first time I did it I realized I left my film in the hotel, so I did it again the next evening. That night, they forgot I was up there and they locked me in. I had to hand all of me gear to a stranger over a tall chain link fence and then I had to climb out. Photography is not as glamorous as some may think.

 

Some conclusions I formed. Yes 6x9 can have more resolution than the 1Ds, but it is not always very significant. There are a lot of drawbacks to shooting film. Some make it inconvenient or expensive. Others such as needing center filters and color correction filters degrade the image. Overall, I simply find I get a better looking image with digital. And I get it much more easily.

 

I'd have to do similar comparisons with an S2 to see if the difference in resolution was so great to be worth it. Note that one will not always get the maximum resolution out of the S2 unless it is focused accurately and on a tripod shooting a still subject. Other features in a 35mm DSLR such as IS, the possibility of using higher ISO's for shorter shutters speeds, greater depth of filed, possibly faster focusing, faster frame rate, etc. all will play into your overall chances of getting "better' images with one camera or another.

 

Here is what I was really going after on that assignment. It was to sell the views from condos that were under construction. I did the job so well that the owner of the ad agency bought the unit I shot from. Well I'm off to shoot from another roof tonight...

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!

[R10dreamer]

I don't think it is within my point of discussion to compare different film photos of different subjects in different formats by different photographers in different books. Of course these will look different and you probably will prefer one look to another. I was speaking of my normal workflow of shooting film and scanning it with my equipment and making 24x36 inch prints from those scans. Then I compared them with 24x36 inch prints from the same image shot with the 1Ds.

 

Here are 900 pixel wide images of the same subject shot with the 1Ds and also on 6x9 film.

 

The 1Ds file was made with a 16-35 Series 1 zoom at f7.1 It is an in camera jpeg file that had very little adjustment made to it. So it was very quick to produce. This is an 11 megapixel camera that produces about 33 megabyte 8 bit tifs. Note that this shot is a bit wider than the 6x9 shot.

 

The 6x9 was made on Veliva 50 with a 65mm f4.5 Grandagon on a Linhof Technikardan. It probably was shot around f11. I then scanned it with my Polaroid Sprintscan 120 (same as a Microtek scanner) at 4000 dpi 8 bit tif. This produced a 325 megabyte file that is more than twice as large as the file from a 50 megapixel back. (Though probably not as detailed.) This is a 29x43 inch image at 300 dpi. I don't think there is a different "look" between the two shots other than the color and film grain.

 

The Polaroid software is not very good and I didn't try Silverfast. But I really couldn't get the 6x9 shot to have the same color as the 1Ds shot. (The film looks closer to the scan than it does to the 1Ds file.) If I take out any more green, the sky will be purple. I'm sure I could get it better if I really worked on it. It took about 20 minutes to prescan, adjust and then do a hi res scan. There is a lot of dust that needs to be spotted because I used a glass holder for maximum sharpness.

 

OK so I then cropped a section of the 6x9 file. And I interpolated up the little 11 megapixel 1Ds file 400% making it a 525 megabyte file which would be 36x54 inches at 300 dpi. (The 1Ds file is at a disadvantage because it started out wider thus needed more magnification.)

 

Now of course the 6x9 file has more detail, but in my opinion, it only becomes a factor at very large sizes when viewed up close such as at 100% on a monitor. If you consider what a 21 megapixel FF DSLR with a prime lens could do, it will be even closer. And you have all of the grain and dust from the film. My point to this is that a lot of jobs can be shot with a 35mm FF DSLR. And stitching is always an option for more detail on this type of subject.

 

 

Personally, I love the dust and hairs on the 4 x 5 image. Thanks for reminding me why I left film.