S2 under pricing pressure

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I were the chief of Nikon, I'm gonna double, no, triple or quadruple what Leica offers to Peter Karbe and develop a premium lineup of optics. But hey, Nikon isn't all that bad, it's only different corporate culture and business philosophy.

 

I hate to say this but Leica really should put more focuses on optics, by refusing to build lenses for other mounts, they may sell hundreds or thousands more cameras but in the mean time, they lose hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of sales of lenses.

 

At the moment, I think that the main place where lenses can command higher prices is for MF gear. I think that is the prime motivating factor behind the S2. (The M8 may be an exception due to it being a unique product and having a unique customer base including collectors.)

 

If there was a large market for $3500 50mm f1.4 lenses, Canon and Nikon would have filled it long ago. I am not sure if Leica could design and competitively produce lenses such as some of Canon and Nikon's recent offerings... Nikon 14-24 2.8, Canon's new 17 and 24 TS-E and others that may be on the way.

 

So while Canon may be able to sell a certain number of 17 TS-E lenses for $3500 this is still a lot of money for a lens that goes on a 35mm DSLR. Yet it is only the price of a manual focus R 50 1.4 lens. So how many Leica 17 TS lenses would be sold if they were in the $6,000 to $10,000 range? Even if they are marketing to Canon, Nikon, and Sony systems and the Leica lens is a little better? If Leica wants to sell lenses for Nikon, Canon, and Sony they not only will have to make good quality lenses that are not way more expensive than the competition, they will have to be innovative and creative also. That won't be so easy.

 

If Leica can't lower the prices of its 35mm lenses, the marketing rationale will have to be... "If you are willing to pay for a technically better image, why not buy the S2 and its lenses where you get a bigger boost in detail and Leica is not competing with much lower cost options?" The problem is that this situation will not exist forever and Leica should somehow broaden the price range of gear that it offers so it will have more options in the future. BMW has a range from the Mini to the Rolls Royce, yet BMW always stays true and consistent to one unifying image for all of the BMW branded cars as being the "Ultimate Driving Machine."

[sdai]

For what? I'm no expert, but I'd expect Leica to know what they are doing.

 

I think they know this quite well but they've no better choice. Will Panasonic let them use the "Venus" DSP? I don't think so.

[sdai]

I think in this digital age optics and cameras are best when designed as a closed system..the optics of the S2 are designed and manufactured for the S2 camera, and it is with this camera that the premium results will be had. smart move.

 

That's true when it comes to inferior optics which need correction in camera or, wide angle lenses designed for cropped sensors.

 

I don't see why Leica lenses need to be corrected, the MTF charts of S lenses are almost all straight lines.

[sdai]

The problem is that this situation will not exist forever and Leica should somehow broaden the price range of gear that it offers so it will have more options in the future. BMW has a range from the Mini to the Rolls Royce, yet BMW always stays true and consistent to one unifying image for all of the BMW branded cars as being the "Ultimate Driving Machine."

 

Let's put it this way ... Leica is Rolls Royce, or Mini depicted in your picture. None of them had the capacity, or capability to broaden their product range and sustain competition. Both became the targets of BMW to broaden Bimmer's product range.

 

If Leica could sell a million digital cameras ... congratulations, but supporting that number of customers would be a nightmare.

 

Optics, on the other hand, are pretty much a one shot deal, once you send the customer out of your door, they'll probably never come back on the same item.

[AlanG]

Let's put it this way ... Leica is Rolls Royce, or Mini depicted in your picture. None of them had the capacity, or capability to broaden their product range and sustain competition. Both became the targets of BMW to broaden Bimmer's product range.

 

That's probably more like it. The Leica microscope company is made up of the mergers and acquisitions of at least 8 companies all now owned by Danaher.

[wildlightphoto]

Optics, on the other hand, are pretty much a one shot deal, once you send the customer out of your door, they'll probably never come back on the same item.

 

Unless a camera maker tweaks the camera's firmware enough to turn a third-party lens into a doorstop.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let's put it this way ... Leica is Rolls Royce, or Mini depicted in your picture. None of them had the capacity, or capability to broaden their product range and sustain competition. Both became the targets of BMW to broaden Bimmer's product range.

 

If Leica could sell a million digital cameras ... congratulations, but supporting that number of customers would be a nightmare.

 

Optics, on the other hand, are pretty much a one shot deal, once you send the customer out of your door, they'll probably never come back on the same item.

 

Umm...Mini had been dead for decades before BMW decided to jump on the bandwagon and build a retro impression of the thing, which has very little to do with the original, but seems to appeal to DINK types.

[sdai]

Unless a camera maker tweaks the camera's firmware enough to turn a third-party lens into a doorstop.

 

There's only little trick they can do, and everytime Sigma, Tamron could figure it out easily.

 

There's a guy in Vancouver who can convert the Contax N mount and 645 mount lenses into EF mount with AF fully functional ... if a one man shop could handle it, what's the big deal for a company like Leica?

[wildlightphoto]

There's only little trick they can do, and everytime Sigma, Tamron could figure it out easily.

 

There's a guy in Vancouver who can convert the Contax N mount and 645 mount lenses into EF mount with AF fully functional ... if a one man shop could handle it, what's the big deal for a company like Leica?

 

Simon, the equine is deceased, you can stop flogging it. It's not going to happen.

[sdai]

Simon, the equine is deceased, you can stop flogging it. It's not going to happen.

 

Doesn't bother me the slightest, Doug ... Leica or not makes no difference to me. Unlike many folks on this forum, I've never felt any strong affiliation to a specific name brand for anything, whoever does what I like then I'll go for it.

[t024484]

2^16=65536, 2^14=16384, 65536/16384=4

 

Greater bit depth directly translates into greater resolution, greater bit depth means finer tonal gradations between pure black and pure white.

 

By the way, what waste of money?

 

There's no pricing differences between a 14 bit and a 16 bit A/D converter, it's all under 10 bucks each.

 

Of course, if you go by 14 bit there is much less data to crunch so the camera will respond faster. IMO that's the true reason why Leica adopts 14 bit A/D for the S2. Just exactly why went for 8 bit in the M8.

 

The "Maestro" DSP based on Fujitsu's Milbeaut platform simply isn't powerful enough. Sigma SD14's DSP is based on the same chip too ... no one can endorse it as a fast machine.

1) It seems that you have not understood the restriction of the max Dynamic Range of 12 EV of the sensor.

You can use a 32 bit converter, and are still limited by the 72 dB Dynamic Range max.

For that reason, your statement that 16 bit produces more professional images than 14 bit is dead wrong.

2) Leica did not go for 8 bit in the M8 but for 14 bit.The non linear compression to 8 bit is after number crunching.

3) Maybe you can supply Leica with A to D converters for the price you mention. They will be quite happy.

 

Hans

[sdai]

1) It seems that you have not understood the restriction of the max Dynamic Range of 12 EV of the sensor.

You can use a 32 bit converter, and are still limited by the 72 dB Dynamic Range max.

For that reason, your statement that 16 bit produces more professional images than 14 bit is dead wrong.

 

I'm not an engineer, I don't know what you're talking about ... if no sensor can exceed the 12 stop EV limit as you say, how can you explain the 12.5 stops DR on P40+'s spec. sheet?

 

And I've read from somewhere that the S2 is capable of producing 14 stops of DR.

 

2) Leica did not go for 8 bit in the M8 but for 14 bit.The non linear compression to 8 bit is after number crunching.

 

Where does the 14 bit reference come from? it doesn't show up in any credible/official resource.

 

3) Maybe you can supply Leica with A to D converters for the price you mention. They will be quite happy.

 

Just as an example, you could check the price list (bulk 1000-4999) on Analog Devices' web site.

 

I'm sure Leica is pretty happy because they've made tons of money from the M8.

[AlanG]

While the bit depth will not give you more dynamic range, it will allow for finer gradations between tones over that dynamic range. How much this matters in real life may be debatable.

 

This is how I understand the system to work, correct me if I am wrong:

 

So while a 14 bit system has 16,384 shades per color and a 16 bit system has 65,536 shades per color, these are logarithmic and do not end up being the same number of of distinct shades between each full stop in the complete dynamic range.

 

Assume the sensor can record 13 stops. If this were spread over 16 bits, going from the brightest point down one stop will have 32,768 possible shades for each of the three colors. The next stop will have 16384 shades and so on until the 13th and last stop from very dark to pure black only has 8 shades per color.

 

Now if you apply that 13 stop range over 14 bits, the first stop down from maximum white will have 8192 shades per color and the 13th stop will only have 2 shades available per color.

 

So you can see as you increase the dynamic range it is a good idea to increase the bit depth so that if you want to try to pull out detail from the darker tones, there will be a greater number of shades to work with. Otherwise those deep tones will look choppy or posterized.

 

Typically we will convert to 8 bits for output anyway but you can do that after pulling up the detail from the shadows and making sure they are smooth. And some printers can work with 16 bit files directly for supposedly smoother results. I have a printer like that but can't say I've really put that feature to the test. But I could imagine a high quality b/w image with fine detail and dark gradients in very deep tones could benefit.

 

While this might be a hyper critical situation, that may be why one is using a high end MF system in the first place.

[adan]

There's only little trick they can do, and everytime Sigma, Tamron could figure it out easily.

 

There's a guy in Vancouver who can convert the Contax N mount and 645 mount lenses into EF mount with AF fully functional ... if a one man shop could handle it, what's the big deal for a company like Leica?

 

Not surprising - Kyocera/Contax outsourced their N/645 AF technology from Canon in the first place.

[markowich]

David,

 

By the way, while some feel having a replaceable back is a plus, I wonder.

An owner of a +45 who is an pro landscape photographer complained to me that he had gotten a sensor scratch that cost him $1,600 and loss of camera use for weeks, simply because he has to take the back off when he is switching from horizontal to vertical, in the field. And yes with a $20,000 back he tries very hard to be careful.

 

 

this comment makes me think you have never used an MF system. you do nou need to take off the sensor on the H sytem, the mamiya, the phase, the contax....when you want to shoot portait mode. you need to when you put your DB on a viewcamera, something you will never have to luxury of doing in S2-land.

peter

[markowich]

i am very curious how you are going to change your leica fanboy rethoric (which, forgive me, sometimes borders on the ridicolous), when the S2 follows the M8 trail.

peter

 

Interesting.

 

I was just over at Luminous Landscape's Medium Format forum where news of a new Phase One digital back was leaked/announced. The P40+ features a 40 MP 33x44mm sensor based on 6um technology. It shoots at 1.2 fps at full res and allows the user to use pixel binning to gain 2 additional stops of ISO performance (up to 3200 ISO).

 

This all sounds pretty familiar, given that the S2 is based off of the same latest generation 6um CCD architecture (although Phase is using Dalsa, Leica is using Kodak). The S2 is 37.5 MP, a mere 2.5 MP smaller than the Phase. Does this mean that the Phase isn't "real" MF? Why would they announce a brand new product that was a "cropped" MF size? BTW, the difference between 30x45mm and 33x44mm is just 7%.

 

So, the S2 will shoot a little faster at 1.5 fps vs. 1.2 fps. Both will offer pixel binning, the S2 at 9.3 MP vs. the P40+ at 10 MP (a whopping 0.7 MP difference). Both will offer high ISO performance. But....

 

The S2 offers weather sealing, faster AF, a more ergonomic and tougher body, exposure times longer than 1 minute (the P40+ and P65+ are limited in this area vs. older Kodak-based Phase backs), a very high quality LCD screen, dual card slots, integrated Wifi, vertical grip, stellar lenses, selectable leaf shutter or focal plane shutter, simplicity of operation, etc, etc, etc.

 

And as far as pricing goes.... Phase announced the price of the P40+ back (no camera) at $19,999 / 14,999 Euro. The price with the camera is $22K. Seems to me that this is a "comparable MF system at time of introduction," certainly more so than the older P30+. Same sensor tech, same sensor size, same resolution. So, perhaps we can put a rest to both the comments of an outdated sensor or being overpriced vs. the competition. Incidentally, no one in that forum seems to be complaining about the price of the P40+, only the lousy LCD screen. On the contrary, some have said what a great deal it is. Hmm. Food for thought.

 

David

[ptomsu]

The biggest advantage of Phase is, they are using Dalsa sensors, which are far superior to Kodak in all aspects!

 

Great decision Leica - you have again put your cards on the LOOSER

[AlanG]

The biggest advantage of Phase is, they are using Dalsa sensors, which are far superior to Kodak in all aspects!

 

I really have no personal knowledge as to which sensor is better. But I have wondered why Leaf kept using Dalsa sensors years after the company was purchased by Kodak. Perhaps sensor sales to Leaf isn't a big enough market for Kodak to care. Perhaps the Dalsa chips are just better suited to Leaf's designs and the applications for the backs. (Tilts and shifts.)

[markowich]

The biggest advantage of Phase is, they are using Dalsa sensors, which are far superior to Kodak in all aspects!

 

Great decision Leica - you have again put your cards on the LOOSER

 

my P45 has a Kodak sensor and my H3DII 50 too, and both perform very well in comparism to ma Aptus 75 with its Dalsa sensor. i am very critical of leica, but te kodak-dalsa choice is hard to critisize. peter

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[t024484]

While the bit depth will not give you more dynamic range, it will allow for finer gradations between tones over that dynamic range. How much this matters in real life may be debatable.

 

This is how I understand the system to work, correct me if I am wrong:

 

So while a 14 bit system has 16,384 shades per color and a 16 bit system has 65,536 shades per color, these are logarithmic and do not end up being the same number of of distinct shades between each full stop in the complete dynamic range.

 

Assume the sensor can record 13 stops. If this were spread over 16 bits, going from the brightest point down one stop will have 32,768 possible shades for each of the three colors. The next stop will have 16384 shades and so on until the 13th and last stop from very dark to pure black only has 8 shades per color.

 

Now if you apply that 13 stop range over 14 bits, the first stop down from maximum white will have 8192 shades per color and the 13th stop will only have 2 shades available per color.

 

So you can see as you increase the dynamic range it is a good idea to increase the bit depth so that if you want to try to pull out detail from the darker tones, there will be a greater number of shades to work with. Otherwise those deep tones will look choppy or posterized.

 

Typically we will convert to 8 bits for output anyway but you can do that after pulling up the detail from the shadows and making sure they are smooth. And some printers can work with 16 bit files directly for supposedly smoother results. I have a printer like that but can't say I've really put that feature to the test. But I could imagine a high quality b/w image with fine detail and dark gradients in very deep tones could benefit.

 

While this might be a hyper critical situation, that may be why one is using a high end MF system in the first place.

 

Hi Alan,

 

It is not my intention to play the wise guy, I just happen to know a little bit more from A/D converters.

More bits unfortunately do not lead to more detail, since below the point where noise is dominating the signal will be burried in noise and cannot be recovered out of this noise.

So steps with a magnitude below the noise level, only digitize noise and no signal.

This is for small signals as well for a large signal carrying noise.

 

These extra bits do not and cannot contribute in any way to more detail or finer gradation, so going further than 14 bits is not making any sense.

A/D converters are linear devices , meaning for instance that the upper 14 bits of a 16 bit converter produce exactly the same digital info as a 14 bit converter.

The two extra bits are just producing an extra fraction.

Compare it to 5,13 and 5,1335 in the decimal domain. The first three digits of both numbers are the same, but the second number has an extra fraction.

If this number has an accuracy of 1%, then the second number does not give you any more information as the first number, the extra 0.0035 is just noise.

 

From the first to the last step, all steps coming from an A/D converter are equal in step size.

So there is really nothing logarithmic about A/D converters.

Therefore, your example with 13 bits is not how things are.

 

Hans