Jump to content

S2 under pricing pressure


andreas_thomsen

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 592
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Peter, why don't you make a list of pros and cons of all systems you are considering, including promised hype and real facts (appropriately labelled, of course :)), perhaps on getdpi in a new thread? It will be interesting to see where it goes.

 

While this might be a good idea, I have the feeling it would still bore a number of people.

 

I have my pro and con list in my head - and as you know meanwhile - I also unfortunately do not forget issues for a long time - or even delete them from the list ;)

 

BTW I will have a look on the Leaf solution with Hy6 on Monday next week, which seems very good on paper, but not sure if this would not be a step too big for me and my needs. Will see :cool:

 

But I think after that I have a good picture of the available MF solutions - except the S System - but please forget, I do not want to reiterate this discussion again :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan you are mis-reading my posts. Perhaps I should BOLD my posts, or type more slowly.

 

I wrote: The question is less one of "right" or "wrong", it's more about suitability for the intended purpose. My goals are not the same as yours, that's not to say one is right or wrong, but those who don't understand and recognize the advantages and disadvantages different tools offer will have a harder time reaching their goals. My equipment has disadvantages that you cannot accept for your work, your equipment has features and disadvantages that work against me. I'm not attacking your mother, I'm just illustrating the conditions where the CaNikon designs compromise optimum image quality.

 

 

Can't see how that would help much but go for it and we will find out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insolvent, not bankrupt, and it sounds like all involved parties (F&H, Sinar, Leaf, Jenoptik) are determined to solve the problem. In any case, Jenoptik owns the IP, so another builder could be found.

 

They are insolvent, but what I heard they were already taken over by some consortium (do not know who) and they just skipped all old products like Rollei etc, but definitely want to move forward with the digital MF solutions ....

 

Will see, I think this system is anyway to big for me :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that those who cry for freedom of speech, and the right to question, end up being the least tolerant of those who question them..if this is to be an open forum then you have to be willing to take it as well as dish it out.

and if you can't take a little heat then please use your ability to ignore this forum..but don't moan and complain and call others intolerant for exercising the same "openess" that you wish to post here.

if I wish to post some broad generalization based on my puny photo experience then I fully expect someone with a differing experience to post a rebuttal to that. doing so has nothing to do with being intolerant. If I defend some aspect of Leica it does not make me a blind disciple at their feet...life is not that black and white.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one of substituting convenience for excellence. Make enough of these compromises and you get 'adequate' image quality instead of optimum.

 

For example: AF is pretty good as long as the focus points are in the right place for the composition you want; if not the choices you have are to accept the composition the camera works best with, or use focus-lock-recompose which even Canon recommends against with shallow DOF, or struggle to focus manually with a viewfinder optimized for AF.

 

Another example: optical VR or IS, which adds many air/glass surfaces to the lens and its proper function assumes the IS (VR) unit will be off-center. Off-center optical components degrade off-axis image quality and additional air/glass surfaces increase internal reflections, resulting in lower color saturation and increased flare. "Fix" the lower saturation in software and you lose some tonal gradation.

 

A third example: "fixing" lens distortion in software. You're going to lose fine detail this way.

 

All these convenience features will improve the odds of a technically good photo for the average photographer, but will also reduce the optimum image quality the system is capable of. Your 5DII is certainly capable of adequate image quality, as you've reminded us on numerous occasions, but optimum is out of reach after all those compromises.

 

Doug, you've made many fine, erudite comments. Your arguments toward optimal quality are a bit of "straw man" argument though; Alan is just stating that there is a compromise point in image quality, i.e., "adequate" image quality. Reading these posts from a somewhat neutral perspective, I find that you come across as a bit sycophantic, if not just blatantly condescending. Leica equipment is quite impressive (and I do hope you are enjoying my Apo-2X teleconverter), but the "Canonikon" gear competes well, and in some cases surpasses Leica in terms of image quality.

 

I can't do side-by-side comparisons now, but I'll put the 200/2 Canon up against the Leica 180/2 anytime (having owned both). Similarly, the 85/1.2 can compete well with the 80 'lux. I kept the 80 'lux even though the Canon was better at 1.4 just because of the size and better manual focus. The new Canon 14mm is superior to my 15/3.5 Elmar on full-frame, although the Super-Elmar still commands a silly price--simply because the 15/2.8 is out of reach (and doesn't work on full-frame Canons). And although I could tell a difference in side-by-side testing of a Canon 300/4 vs. the much-accoladed 280/4 APO-Telyt, I found the differences subtle and certainly not worth the $3000 price differential. My Canon 300/2.8 was clearly superior to my Leica 280/2.8, even with the image degradation brought about by that pesky IS module (and no, I don't have to "fix" the contrast in software). I compared the Canon 400/2.8 to the Leica 400/2.8 and thought the Canon came out on top--for $8000 less....Both versions of the Canon 24/1.4,the 24/3.5 TS and the Nikkor 24/2.8, are all better than the Leica 24/2.8. The 65 mm Canon Macro is better than the Leica 55, although the Canon 100 Macro is obviously no match for the Leica 100.

 

I'll concede that every single Leica lens feels better in the hand than it's given Canon or Nikkor counterpart. The focus is smoother, the build quality is better, attention to detail is better. The R9/DMR combo--despite it's fragmented heritage, the camera system feels great in the hand and the ergonomics are superb. Well except for the multifunction dial on the back...The Leica DSLR is delightfully simple to use, as is the M8. Yes the Canon has too many buttons and functions. Fortunately, most of these can be safely ignored. I digress...

 

At this point, after a couple of weeks and a few thousand images, I'm fairly certain that my Canon 5D mk2 gives me better image quality than my R9/DMR. It does so with lighter weight, higher reliablity, better customer support and at a lower system cost. I no longer have to compromise on wide angle imaging or depth of field by using a less than full frame sensor. I can shoot above ISO 800 without IQ falling completely apart. If it fails, I can get a replacement in a timely fashion. I worry a little less when it starts to rain. My 19mm lens is a 19 mm lens. Some of the advantages are for convenience, but some are for optimal image quality. There are negatives for the Canon as well, but the balance sheet puts it in the positive for me.

 

Personally, I think Leica users tend to suffer from a bit of a placebo effect. It's a Leica--it must be better. Perhaps this is the reason the M8 was introduced with it's many foibles; the systemic failure to see and address the problems with the camera prior to it's launch had a distinctly negative impact on the market success of the camera. For Leica to survive, the company and it's loyal customers will need to be more introspective and critical with the S system than they have been with the M8.

 

Enjoy your craft

 

--Jeff Wright

Edited by braindeadmac
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been very critical with the M8 from the very beginning. It's banding had to be solved and it was solved. The IR-filters had to (at least partly) be cost free (no other IR-prone digicam ever included IR-filters for free). But it's a very special camera/system with significant disadvantages in exchange to unique advantages. M8-users use it because they can't live with certain aspects of todays DSLRs - and I'm not talking about the name.

 

Your lens-comparisons are interesting, I know only some of the mentioned Canon-lenses but I'm sure you can see a difference between the Summicron 180mm and any other lens.

All the other lenses (which are not better than Canons) are about 20 years older than their Canon-counterparts - newer Leica-designs are significantly better. I've compared the Summilux 24mm, it's better at f1.4 than any 24mm I've ever seen above f4!

 

Yes, we don't want "small-MFDBs" like DMR/M8 with slow DSPs und bought electronic design/firmware, where Leica has to wait for months to get new software. That's why the S2 is so promising to us, even if we won't buy such a big/expensive camera but a M9 with S2-technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been very critical with the M8 from the very beginning. It's banding had to be solved and it was solved. The IR-filters had to (at least partly) be cost free (no other IR-prone digicam ever included IR-filters for free). But it's a very special camera/system with significant disadvantages in exchange to unique advantages. M8-users use it because they can't live with certain aspects of todays DSLRs - and I'm not talking about the name.

 

Your lens-comparisons are interesting, I know only some of the mentioned Canon-lenses but I'm sure you can see a difference between the Summicron 180mm and any other lens.

All the other lenses (which are not better than Canons) are about 20 years older than their Canon-counterparts - newer Leica-designs are significantly better. I've compared the Summilux 24mm, it's better at f1.4 than any 24mm I've ever seen above f4!

 

Yes, we don't want "small-MFDBs" like DMR/M8 with slow DSPs und bought electronic design/firmware, where Leica has to wait for months to get new software. That's why the S2 is so promising to us, even if we won't buy such a big/expensive camera but a M9 with S2-technology.

 

All of the lenses paint differently and have different imaging characteristics, that's a bit of a given. With the 180/2 vs. 200/2 (and 200/1.8 before it) the Canon rivals the Summicron. I like the bokeh from the 200/2 a little better, but that is clearly a subjective thing. Just because it's a Leica, doesn't make it better, is my principle point. With the exception of the 15/2.8 and supertelephotos, I've owned just about every lens in the R line up. Most are gems, some are duds, plain and simple fact.

 

I'm sure the Leica 24/1.4 M lens is superb (it ought to be for it's price), but I was comparing reflex lenses able to be shot on full frame DSLR. I'm sure it makes a stunning 31.92 mm "equivalent" on the M8. And I'm sorry, I'm not going back to 35 mm film for a single lens.

 

The M8 was a complete cluster-****. The UV/IR filters weren't originally included for free, and were a total afterthought. It took Leica awhile to even acknowledge the problem--they were totally blindsided. My point is that those close to Leica were NOT highly critical prior to release of the camera. The people that were critical were those that came to Leica from Canon and Nikon digital cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, you've made many fine, erudite comments. Your arguments toward optimal quality are a bit of "straw man" argument though; Alan is just stating that there is a compromise point in image quality, i.e., "adequate" image quality.

 

No question that 'adequate' is all that's truly nessesary, if it will get the job done, why spend more money to produce better image quality that the client doesn't appreciate?

 

In my case, I'm the client. I have to satisfy myself and nobody else. I have a job in a cube farm and hardly do any marketing of my photos (but people find them any buy them anyway). I'm not satisfied with less-than-optimum image quality.

 

I can't do side-by-side comparisons now, but I'll put the 200/2 Canon up against the Leica 180/2 anytime (having owned both). Similarly, the 85/1.2 can compete well with the 80 'lux. I kept the 80 'lux even though the Canon was better at 1.4 just because of the size and better manual focus. The new Canon 14mm is superior to my 15/3.5 Elmar on full-frame, although the Super-Elmar still commands a silly price--simply because the 15/2.8 is out of reach (and doesn't work on full-frame Canons). And although I could tell a difference in side-by-side testing of a Canon 300/4 vs. the much-accoladed 280/4 APO-Telyt, I found the differences subtle and certainly not worth the $3000 price differential. My Canon 300/2.8 was clearly superior to my Leica 280/2.8, even with the image degradation brought about by that pesky IS module (and no, I don't have to "fix" the contrast in software). I compared the Canon 400/2.8 to the Leica 400/2.8 and thought the Canon came out on top--for $8000 less....Both versions of the Canon 24/1.4,the 24/3.5 TS and the Nikkor 24/2.8, are all better than the Leica 24/2.8. The 65 mm Canon Macro is better than the Leica 55, although the Canon 100 Macro is obviously no match for the Leica 100.

 

In most of these comparisons you're comparing a much newer Canon lens with a much older Leica lens. You could take a new lens from nearly any maker and compare it with an old lens and most of the time the new lens will run rings around the old one. BTW comparing the files from a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS and the old Leica 400mm f/2.8 APO, I reached a different conclusion: at f/2.8 the Leica lens showed more detail and contrast, at smaller apertures they were pretty much equivalent. Whether a difference in cost is "worth it" is a subjective valuation.

 

At this point, after a couple of weeks and a few thousand images, I'm fairly certain that my Canon 5D mk2 gives me better image quality than my R9/DMR.

 

Sure, but it's much newer technology. A lot happens in electronics in a few years. To clearly see the effects of AA filters, IS, or whatever else you'd need to eliminate the other variables: lens coating technologies, grinding and manufacturing techniques, pixel density, sensor technology, processing software and much more. The degrading effects of some tools/techniques can be partially offset by others, for example in-camera processing to reduce noise or increase saturation, IS resulting in sharper pictures overall for many users, but there are degrading side-effects for every one of these solutions. It's all a matter of being aware of the design choices, the side effects, and a subjective valuation of the importance of each of these choices based on personal circumstances, working habits, subject matter, and intended market.

 

Personally, I think Leica users tend to suffer from a bit of a placebo effect. It's a Leica--it must be better.

 

There certainly are many Leica users who behave this way. However in my experience this effect isn't limited to the Leica brand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The M8 was a complete cluster-****. The UV/IR filters weren't originally included for free, and were a total afterthought. It took Leica awhile to even acknowledge the problem--they were totally blindsided. My point is that those close to Leica were NOT highly critical prior to release of the camera. The people that were critical were those that came to Leica from Canon and Nikon digital cameras.

 

I'm sorry but it looks like you are rewriting history here. Because the people who discovered banding & IR problem came from the film Leica M and the DMR world for most of them.

 

And Leica acknowledged the problem immediately. I still have the e-mails I exchanged with them just a few days after the M8 was released and the problem was discovered and they showed nothing but good faith and a real will to go to the bottom of this thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To clearly see the effects of AA filters, IS, or whatever else you'd need to eliminate the other variables: lens coating technologies, grinding and manufacturing techniques, pixel density, sensor technology, processing software and much more. The degrading effects of some tools/techniques can be partially offset by others, for example in-camera processing to reduce noise or increase saturation, IS resulting in sharper pictures overall for many users, but there are degrading side-effects for every one of these solutions. It's all a matter of being aware of the design choices, the side effects, and a subjective valuation of the importance of each of these choices based on personal circumstances, working habits, subject matter, and intended market.

 

I think you are really splitting hairs. You can get very good and sharp results from most cameras. The 5DII body clearly outperforms the M8 body. And it doesn't take a special lens on the 5DII to see that. (I can't imagine the 10 megapixel DMR could be much better than the M8 as there is only so much data that can be recorded by a similar 10 megapixel chip.) The 5D is about the same or a little better, even with the inexpensive 50 f1.8. (This isn't a lens test so I'm not dealing with wide open comparisons.)

 

It is pretty easy to do some simple tests and see what is going on. For instance, I don't see that the M8's lack of an AA filter gives it such sharp images that it doesn't benefit from additional sharpening. I don't see that the AA filter in the Canons limits their resolution substantially. Aside from that, every lens will be different and have its pros and cons. (Like in the case of my Canon 50 1.8, its big pro is that it only cost $45 used.)

 

Here's a link to a large file where I tested the M8 with a 35 Summicron ASPH, 5D with 50 1.8, and 5DII with 45 TS-E. Note the middle picture with the 5D was an afterthought, so I shot it a bit later. Therefore the chimney has direct light on it. Ignore that when you look. The focus point was on the end of the gutter. (Yes Sean, I bracketed focus with the M8. I used live view for the 45 TS-E/5DII and relied on AF for the 50 1.8/5D ) This is as accurate as I'm capable of testing in a "real world" photography example. If anything, I biased towards the Leica by shooting it a little tighter on the subject.

 

http://goldsteinphoto.com/Posts/M85D.jpg

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest John66

There has been so much rubbish written about the M8 sensor, how it equals the resolution of 16MP sensors etc.

 

To be honest, there's not really that much difference between the Leica, and and the 8MP Canon 1D2 that I use as a backup. Rez them up to 22MP, and you wouldn't know which is which.

 

One of the problems with a lot of Leica devotees is that they believe and hang onto every marketing line Leica puts out.

 

If Leica suddenly decided to put a very strong AA filter in the S2, no doubt the the devotees would be waxing lyrical about how smooth the images look, and anything sharper would be just plain vulgar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but it looks like you are rewriting history here. Because the people who discovered banding & IR problem came from the film Leica M and the DMR world for most of them.

 

And Leica acknowledged the problem immediately. I still have the e-mails I exchanged with them just a few days after the M8 was released and the problem was discovered and they showed nothing but good faith and a real will to go to the bottom of this thing.

 

And I think there are very few people who were using the DMR that weren't already using a Canon or Nikon dSLR. The key here is they noted it after the M8 was released, not before. I'd like Leica to avoid that with the S2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"There has been so much rubbish written about the M8 sensor, how it equals the resolution of 16MP sensors etc."

 

"8MP Canon 1D2"

 

I don't know what kind of Canon you have, but 10MP are 10MP and 16MP are 16MP. The whole system (sensor+lens+filter) can result in resolutions which are similar to systems with more MP. In fact, the practical MTF of the M8+lenses is comparable to high-end 12MP-FF-DSLRs, try it for yourself.

 

AA-filters have to lower contrast at nyquist to 0% - they ALWAYS produce a loss in resolution which cannot be recovered by and post-processing (only the subjective perception of edge sharpness).

Leica uses a "RAW-approach", missing AA-filters can cause moire which has to be removed with software (which doesn't cause quality-loss in comparison to AA-filters, because the frequencies in which moire occurs don't contain detail in a AA-filtered image either) while N/C come from the press-market, sending well-processed JPGs to the client within minutes.

 

I had the pleasure to use the 180mm Summicron for one week. This lens is AWESOME and represents the technical/quality standard which will be seen with the S-lens as well (99,9% sure). I used 25ASA Technical Pan - simply WOW, that's why I bought it's smaller brother, the Apo-Elmarit.

When you want to see the difference in real-world-quality between those tele-lenses, compare the work of Norbert Rosing to other photographers, he uses R8/9 + Velvia + Apo-lenses, technically the best 35mm-wildlife-pictures I've ever seen.

 

@Alan

Nice comparison. I think it's quite obvious that the 80% larger sensor of the 5DII (the pixel-pitch is about the same) gains very little extra resolution in the end - even using a lens in the center at optimal aperture. The Leica-lens has to perform much better because of the higher amount of enlargement. Remember, this is about the S2 which will have a 3x (!!!) bigger sensor...

Edited by georg
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think there are very few people who were using the DMR that weren't already using a Canon or Nikon dSLR. The key here is they noted it after the M8 was released, not before. I'd like Leica to avoid that with the S2.

 

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

We know the drill :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alan

Nice comparison. I think it's quite obvious that the 80% larger sensor of the 5DII (the pixel-pitch is about the same) gains very little extra resolution in the end - even using a lens in the center at optimal aperture. The Leica-lens has to perform much better because of the higher amount of enlargement. Remember, this is about the S2 which will have a 3x (!!!) bigger sensor...

 

In my test, I conclude that the 12 megapixel 5D and 50mm 1.8 did a tiny bit better than the M8 and the 35 Summicron. (Yes, in the center because I was testing the cameras not the lenses.) The 5DII was much better. And this was with the 5D at ISO 160 not its native 100 and also taking in a bit wider scene. And I didn't have an IR filter on the M8 which might have reduced detail a teeny tiny bit. All images look very good across the frame. When I used DXO to convert the Canon images, they were even better. But since DXO is not available for the M8, I couldn't make that comparison.

 

And if you take a 15 megapixel Canon 1.6 crop sensor and a kit lens, it probably will perform as well or better than the M8 and 35 Summicron at an equivalent focal length and moderate F stop. And the 50 f1.8 will probably also be pretty good on it even though it is cropped still more than the 35 Summicron is cropped on the M8. So what? We have to use the cameras and raw converters that exist so theoretical performance of a non-cropped Summicron on a non-existing sensor that lacks an AA filter is irrelevant. Testing and choosing a lens is another story and could take a 10,000 page book of comparisons. The lens you choose may be a personal decision.

 

In any case, I wasn't doing a lens test, I was trying to show that the lack of an AA filter in the M8 does not give a significantly sharper image out of the camera than the 5D has. When all are sharpened, the detail is comparable and the 5DII image has a bit more detail too.

 

Going from 12 to 21 megapixels gains less than 50% additional resolution (In a perfect world) which is not especially apparent when shooting anything but resolution charts in very exacting conditions. When you factor in how we actually use cameras, we don't always get the maximum resolution from them. However what you clearly can get in the 5DII is a bit more detail and the ability to blow up the image larger without interpolation.

 

The S2 should show more detail than the 5DII example I posted. But how significant will that be to most photographers in their typical everyday shooting? For example, many M8 shooters are already happy with what they get from it even though the 5DII and others can produce more detail. This is why I say that since photographers already have the quality that 21 megapixel+ DSLRs provide, even if they test an S2, they may not see enough difference to justify its cost and the fact that it will be less versatile.

 

You have to consider the general overall performance of the imaging system as a whole, its convenience, usability, and versatility...not just the maximum quality that is possible to achieve under certain conditions. E.g. will the DSLR benefit more from the additional depth of field from using shorter lenses, having IS, and perhaps faster AF and a higher frame rate? Will vibration be higher or lower in an S2? What about low light performance? Basically it will come down to each photographer deciding under which conditions each system is more likely to produce the result he is looking for.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...