S2 under pricing pressure

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recenly saw a Lumix dmc tz7 point and shoot thing with 12x optical zoom Leica designed lens (25 - 300 mm equivalent, f/3.3-f/4.9). The lack of abberations & distortion are very very impressive, and is one of primary reasons why the Lumixes seem to be wel reviewed. See here Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ7 Review - Digital Camera Reviews

 

Note: I am fully aware that it is not in the same league as M, S & R and it cannot be for that sort of price.

[wlaidlaw]

I recenly saw a Lumix dmc tz7 point and shoot thing with 12x optical zoom Leica designed lens (25 - 300 mm equivalent, f/3.3-f/4.9). The lack of abberations & distortion are very very impressive, and is one of primary reasons why the Lumixes seem to be wel reviewed. See here Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ7 Review - Digital Camera Reviews

 

Note: I am fully aware that it is not in the same league as M, S & R and it cannot be for that sort of price.

 

Stephen,

 

That is exactly the camera my son has (I think I described it as T27 incorrectly). The lens is OK but vignettes a bit a the wider end (25mm equivalent) and has some barrel distortion. I don't think it is quite as good as the 24mm wide end on my Ricoh GX200. At about 50mm equivalent, the lens is just fine. At the far end of the tele range, on my son's one, it is quite soft. Now given that the whole camera cost about 10% of the price of a 35/1.4 Summilux,it is not awful and " bang per buck" it is actually quite good but one should be under no illusion, this is a cheap lens and images can show it. The only lens on the various Panasonics and PanaLeicas we have had in the family that I actually liked, was the Vario-Summicron on my first Digilux 2. The lens on the warranty replacement one, was I thought, not quite as good.

 

Before I retired, I insured a shipment container of Canon photo stuff from China to the USA. Among the shipment were kit lenses for the Rebel. I don't remember the exact figure of the replacement value per lens but it was somewhere around $15 to $20. It is amazing the the results from these unbelievably cheap lenses are as good as they are.

 

Wilson

[mjh]

The optimization occurs in the data that goes into the Raw file matrices. Especially when you work together with the software vendor (Phase) to optimize the profile information.

Those matrices embedded into the DNG file are one thing, a raw converter’s profiles another, even when both serve a similar purpose. Some raw converters rely on their own optimized profiles (yes, profiles are optimized for cameras, not the other way round) and ignore those matrices. The two color matrices embedded into the DNG files are used for mapping the camera’s device-dependent color space into a device-independent color space (CIEXYZ); they are by definition not supposed to be geared towards any specific raw converter. And when the raw converter doesn’t even use the matrices, it is immaterial anyway.

[mjh]

The ongoing drama probably isn't anything Leica expected when they entered the hostile land of "medium format" ... I've long suspected that their relationship with Hassy on the DMR has gone rotten because Hassy sensed their intention stepping into the MF territory.

If Leica couldn’t compete in the medium-format market, why should they even try to enter the 35 mm DSLR market where competition is even fiercer and the major players much bigger and stronger? That the relationship with Imacon (it was never a relationship with Hasselblad as such) went sour had many reasons, but definitely not Hasselblad’s fear of competition from Leica in the MF market; I don’t think that had ever been an issue. From the perspective of Imacon, the long-term prospects of an alliance with Leica had lost its appeal when they they got the chance to become part of Hasselblad. Imacon had been looking for a camera vendor as a partner, but then Hasselblad presented itself as a much better match. If history had taken a different turn and Imacon stayed an independent entity, they probably would have encouraged Leica to venture into MF territory so they could build an MF DSLR together, but I don’t believe Imacon thought it likely that Leica would pursue this route on their own.

 

Phase, Hassy et al may not feel competition then perhaps they may actually offer some help.

Only I don’t believe medium-format vendors would be any help against the likes of Canon or Nikon. Which medium-format vendor could compete against 35 mm vendors when it comes to autofocus, matrix metering, automatic white balance, TTL flash metering, hight burst-mode throughput, or just decent internal image processing resulting in presentable JPEG images? For the latter, Panasonic would be much better suited as a partner.

 

It's time for Leica to put down their ego and admit the S2 was just an impulse decision

It most certainly wasn’t.

[wlaidlaw]

Is it my imagination or is Leica beginning to get a bit of a track record in souring relationships. Minolta, Fuji, Imacon, Sinar, Jenoptik and now Phase. They are either dreadfully unlucky or else damn difficult to work with - your choice ;-}}

 

Wilson

[R10dreamer]

Is it my imagination or is Leica beginning to get a bit of a track record in souring relationships. Minolta, Fuji, Imacon, Sinar, Jenoptik and now Phase. They are either dreadfully unlucky or else damn difficult to work with - your choice ;-}}

 

Wilson

 

You might add customer relationships to this list as well. I am not the only R shooter unhappy with their dumping of the R10.

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is it my imagination or is Leica beginning to get a bit of a track record in souring relationships. Minolta, Fuji, Imacon, Sinar, Jenoptik and now Phase.

At least the relationship with Jenoptik/Sinar is still ongoing. The partnership with Fuji just didn’t work out the way Leica had envisaged, so they called it quits. The partnership with Panasonic wasn’t entirely conflict-free, partly because Steven K. Lee didn’t get along too well with the Japanese, but now that he is gone, they will probably live happily ever after. The partnership with Minolta was something Minolta remembered fondly till the very end; somewhere on the pages of the manual of every single digital camera made by Minolta there was a picture of a CLE and a caption explaining how Minolta used to cooperate with Leica, a non sequitur that speaks volumes.

[sdai]

If Leica couldn’t compete in the medium-format market, why should they even try to enter the 35 mm DSLR market where competition is even fiercer and the major players much bigger and stronger? ...

 

Michael, thanks a lot for providing your insight into the Leica-Imacon-Hassy saga.

 

But coming back to Leica's S2-R10 dilemma, I seriously suspect that they've picked the wrong horse - again.

 

Quite simply, there's no way you can avoid competition by choosing a different sensor size - that's the easiest part. Canon owns their own fab and builds their own stepper, I think they've also had a deal with Zeiss and ASML. Nikon also builds their own stepper and leases Sony's fab.

 

Cutting a 45x30 sensor can't be easier for them than cutting tofu if they see a viable market. Both Digic IV and Expeed processors have redundant horsepowers when dealing with 1D and D3 class cameras.

 

Don't forget Phase One, who already owns Mamiya and the later has a ZD body. They could revive the ZD at anytime if they see Leica succeeds.

 

Most CURRENT Leica users perfectly understand their strength and weakness, nobody really has made any big fuss about their cameras ... because we come here for its lenses.

 

Leica understands this too so that's why they always refused to make lenses for other mounts ... there's no such a thing called internal patent exchanges so Sigma/Tamron et al could be allowed to build EF and F mount lenses.

 

I'm not expecting Leica to hit a full mark with only one and the first shot, the first generation products will always be very buggy. Just think about the improvement Hassy has managed to make from the H1 to H3 ... eventually they could figure all out but it won't be faster enough than competitors will catch up or, leapfrog. By that time, they lose again ... and we who choose to follow, will also lose!

 

It's like a soccer club, if you want to stay in the Bundesliga you're gonna play each game, no one would say ... ooops, VfL Wolfsburg and Bayern Munchen are too strong, let's apply for the membership of 2. Bundesliga, then you must face Karlsruher, Aschen etc. Finally, you say ... let's start our own league - way to go that's it - who would watch it?

[sdai]

I should have also added ... even if Leica could take 20% of the 10000 unit MF market they envisioned, that's only 2000 cameras per year.

 

Now, if they come back working on 35mm, the market size according to CIPA's projection is 10 million unit cameras and 15 million lenses in 2009 alone. Even Leica could only grab 0.1% of it, that's 10000 cameras and probably much more than 15000 lenses - annually.

[mjh]

Quite simply, there's no way you can avoid competition by choosing a different sensor size - that's the easiest part.

But that isn’t really the intention. It is not like you could leave your competitors dumbfounded by choosing an unusual sensor size. There are several sensor sizes and aspect ratios used in the MF market as it is. But this isn’t about choosing a new size of sensor, but about creating a new kind of camera system.

 

Take the H3DII-31, for example, the entry-level model of the Hasselblad range: Despite its relatively small sensor size (44.2 mm x 33.1 mm, just 8 percent larger than the sensor of the S2), it is a great little camera that conclusively demonstrates the MF advantage. Sure, an EOS-1Ds Mark III or a D3x would be faster, have a faster and more versatile autofocus, and deliver decent JPEGs out-of-camera with low noise at high ISO settings, but when the image quality to be obtained in a studio setting is at issue, the H3DII-31 runs rings around either of the two.

 

Only the H3DII-31 is big … and it’s heavy. Even for someone accustomed to handling a professional Canon or Nikon. And that’s because all the H series cameras are derived from a design geared towards the much bigger 6x4.5 format. However, if you build a system around a smaller sensor size, you get a camera that is smaller and lighter, yet offers all the benefits of a camera like the H3DII-31. And if you give up on the totally modular design of the classic Hasselblads, something Hasselblad have started to do themselves, and take a cue from the design of 35 mm DSLRs instead, you may get something that has a lot of appeal to the 35 mm crowd.

 

Don't forget Phase One, who already owns Mamiya and the later has a ZD body. They could revive the ZD at anytime if they see Leica succeeds.

The ZD was a great concept – in theory. In practice, the ZD left me singularly unimpressed. I think the S2 will turn out to be what the ZD should have been, hadn’t Mamiya dropped the ball on that one.

 

Neither the MF nor the 35 mm vendors are free to create a new system. Hasselblad and Phase One have moved towards even larger (full-frame 6x4.5) sensors and thus affirmed their choice of system, and neither Canon nor Nikon are likely to expand their portfolio beyond 36 mm x 24 mm. Even a ZD Mark II would still carry the legacy of a camera system once designed for 120 roll film.

 

I should have also added ... even if Leica could take 20% of the 10000 unit MF market they envisioned, that's only 2000 cameras per year.

 

Now, if they come back working on 35mm, the market size according to CIPA's projection is 10 million unit cameras and 15 million lenses in 2009 alone. Even Leica could only grab 0.1% of it, that's 10000 cameras and probably much more than 15000 lenses - annually.

And such a relatively small share of the 35 mm DSLR market will be exactly what they are after – with the S2, mind you, not any kind of R. The 10,000 units/year figure isn’t realistic when the existing MF market is seen as the only source, so Leica will have to attract potential defectors from the 35 mm DSLR camp, and as you said, even a trickle would make a huge difference for Leica. Will it work? I have no idea, but the potential is quite real.

[sdai]

And such a relatively small share of the 35 mm DSLR market will be exactly what they are after – with the S2, mind you, not any kind of R. The 10,000 units/year figure isn’t realistic when the existing MF market is seen as the only source, so Leica will have to attract potential defectors from the 35 mm DSLR camp, and as you said, even a trickle would make a huge difference for Leica. Will it work? I have no idea, but the potential is quite real.

 

If Leica has their eying on the 35mm defectors moving upward, then they should position the S2 accordingly ... I've no idea what have convinced them that the S2 would be direct archrivals to Hasselblad's and Phase's high end offerings (therefore they're going to price it accordingly?).

 

Whether the S2 is gonna take a bite off Hassy/Phase's or Canon/Nikon's shares, I don't think that competition will let it slip through their fingers. Canon, Nikon, Phase and Hassy won't have any problem building their own "S" systems too.

 

If I put down $30-40 grand down today for a S2 and a couple of lenses, only to find the grass on the other side is greener tomorrow. What do think that I will do? ... dump this and go for that?

 

And when Leica feels difficult facing competition's "S systems", will they redraw another "rectangle" again?

 

It's a sand castle built on a series of hypotheses:

 

1. People will buy it because it's a Leica.

2. Leica can handle everything alright on their own.

3. Competition will leave the S2 alone because of its oddball sensor size.

4. There are enough numbers of 35mm users who aren't satisfied with what current high end DSLRs could offer and,

5. above individuals are willing to pay for and,

6. are able to afford the steep price in exchange for totally disproportional/marginal gain in image quality.

7. There'll be no future development in 35mm segment in terms of IQ, pricing ...

8. Medium format models will stay as they are ...

 

I agree with you that it is a system with a certain potential, but I don't know whether it is real and/or how long it will last.

[wildlightphoto]

At least the relationship with Jenoptik/Sinar is still ongoing.

 

And with Kodak.

[delander †]

If Leica couldn’t compete in the medium-format market, why should they even try to enter the 35 mm DSLR market where competition is even fiercer and the major players much bigger and stronger?

 

The DSLR market is so large and the products so varied at different price points I dont believe either Canon or Nikon would react to a Leica R10 the way that Phaseone and Hassleblad will react to a Leica S2.

 

Jeff

[wlaidlaw]

At least the relationship with Jenoptik/Sinar is still ongoing.

Michael,

 

Surely this relationship must be under great strain after Jenoptik backed out of the deal to sell the majority stake in Sinar to Leica. Also I understood that Leica has taken the firmware of the M8, originally developed with Jenoptik, 100% back "in house".

 

Wilson

[R10dreamer]

The DSLR market is so large and the products so varied at different price points I dont believe either Canon or Nikon would react to a Leica R10 the way that Phaseone and Hassleblad will react to a Leica S2.

 

Jeff

 

Bingo

[Guest guy_mancuso]

The DSLR market is so large and the products so varied at different price points I dont believe either Canon or Nikon would react to a Leica R10 the way that Phaseone and Hassleblad will react to a Leica S2.

 

Jeff

 

You can count on that. Getting market share in this small market is not a easy task and whatever you get needs to sustain Hassy and Phase since this is the only market there in. No free lunch here , Leica will have to earn whatever they can draw from it. I suspect Hassy and Phase will not make it easy. Time will tell

[wlaidlaw]

Since Phase seems to have a bottomless piggy bank at the moment and is in acquisitive mood, it might be easiest if Phase bought Leica as well, then we would be sure to get C1 packaged with the S2 ;-}}

 

Wilson

[sandymc]

Some raw converters rely on their own optimized profiles (yes, profiles are optimized for cameras, not the other way round) and ignore those matrices.

 

That's right - none of Adobe ACR/LR, Aperture or C1 pay any attention to the matrixes if they recognize the camera. Adobe will read the camera calibration matrix, but that isn't often used - on the M8 its always empty. Adobe will also use the internal matrixes if it doesn't recognize the camera.

 

Sandy

[markowich]

But that isn’t really the intention. It is not like you could leave your competitors dumbfounded by choosing an unusual sensor size. There are several sensor sizes and aspect ratios used in the MF market as it is. But this isn’t about choosing a new size of sensor, but about creating a new kind of camera system.

 

Take the H3DII-31, for example, the entry-level model of the Hasselblad range: Despite its relatively small sensor size (44.2 mm x 33.1 mm, just 8 percent larger than the sensor of the S2), it is a great little camera that conclusively demonstrates the MF advantage. Sure, an EOS-1Ds Mark III or a D3x would be faster, have a faster and more versatile autofocus, and deliver decent JPEGs out-of-camera with low noise at high ISO settings, but when the image quality to be obtained in a studio setting is at issue, the H3DII-31 runs rings around either of the two.

 

Only the H3DII-31 is big … and it’s heavy. Even for someone accustomed to handling a professional Canon or Nikon. And that’s because all the H series cameras are derived from a design geared towards the much bigger 6x4.5 format. However, if you build a system around a smaller sensor size, you get a camera that is smaller and lighter, yet offers all the benefits of a camera like the H3DII-31. And if you give up on the totally modular design of the classic Hasselblads, something Hasselblad have started to do themselves, and take a cue from the design of 35 mm DSLRs instead, you may get something that has a lot of appeal to the 35 mm crowd.

 

 

The ZD was a great concept – in theory. In practice, the ZD left me singularly unimpressed. I think the S2 will turn out to be what the ZD should have been, hadn’t Mamiya dropped the ball on that one.

 

Neither the MF nor the 35 mm vendors are free to create a new system. Hasselblad and Phase One have moved towards even larger (full-frame 6x4.5) sensors and thus affirmed their choice of system, and neither Canon nor Nikon are likely to expand their portfolio beyond 36 mm x 24 mm. Even a ZD Mark II would still carry the legacy of a camera system once designed for 120 roll film.

 

 

And such a relatively small share of the 35 mm DSLR market will be exactly what they are after – with the S2, mind you, not any kind of R. The 10,000 units/year figure isn’t realistic when the existing MF market is seen as the only source, so Leica will have to attract potential defectors from the 35 mm DSLR camp, and as you said, even a trickle would make a huge difference for Leica. Will it work? I have no idea, but the potential is quite real.

 

certainly a viable market concept. but the 35mm DSLR camp is not going to buy the one-point autofocus system, those days are long gone in 35mm. this is an unfortunate MF remnant.

also the 35mm crowd demands high iso nowadays. i doubt that the S2 will beat the H3 31 by more than half a stop.

peter

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I can tell you with the P40+ and the P65+ Dalsa sensors with the pixel binning and I did test the P40+ for this that the best you will see is ISO 1600 and seriously no CCD sensor will do better than that. I own the P30+ Kodak sensor 6.8 micron which goes to ISO 1600 and it does a great job at ISO 800 and 1600 will have some noise. These are not like the the D3 or 5DII when it comes to noise. They do a great job but this is the limit of CCD sensors and this honestly is with C1 which does a excellent job with noise, LR on the other hand will not get you these same results with noise with a Phase back in any flavor.

 

If interested you can see the tests for yourself with a P40+ , P30+ and a P45+

There here. P40+, P45+ and my P30+ Oh My - The GetDPI Workshop Forums

 

The P40+, P65+ Dalsa chip is the same 6 micron size as the S2 in the Kodak chip