S2 under pricing pressure

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Hans

 

I studied them at 100%. I uprezzed them in two different programs and compared. I downsized one of the 5DII photos. That is a pretty valid approach if one is interested in seeing how an image will look when printed large. The numbers you posted may be interesting to you but I like to see for myself as I expect to use the cameras for photography not for a research project. Yes when my 63 megabyte files are printed 3 inches across they do seem to lack some detail.

 

As for the ISO 100 and ISO 160, I wanted to see the best possible results out of each camera. I also tested the 5DII at 160. The 5D was tested only at 160.

 

A lot of you have an M8 and other cameras. Why not run your own tests? Especially for moire.

Edited April 28, 2009 by AlanG

[AlanG]

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

 

That is exactly right. As end users, that is what we have to choose from. And our photography reflects the entire process - how clear the atmosphere is, how steady the camera is, how sharp the lens is, how the camera is set, how good the sensor and electronics are, what raw processor we choose and how we use it.

 

There are a lot of variables. I kept as many as possible consistent and then judged the overall result. I'm not drawing sweeping conclusions from it although some others seem to be.

Edited April 28, 2009 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

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

[wildlightphoto]

That is exactly right. As end users, that is what we have to choose from. And our photography reflects the entire process - how clear the atmosphere is, how steady the camera is, how sharp the lens is, how the camera is set, how good the sensor and electronics are, what raw processor we choose and how we use it.

 

There are a lot of variables. I kept as many as possible consistent and then judged the overall result. I'm not drawing sweeping conclusions from it although some others seem to be.

 

Earlier, you wrote: "the AA filter isn't that big a deal for reducing sharpness". Is this not a sweeping conclusion?

 

While I agree that other factors can mitigate the effects of the AA filter (presence or absence) and that subject, lighting and composition are far more significant it seems that for those who don't need specialized lenses like T/S, ultrawide or extreme long lenses the M8 can deliver very high quality images in a smaller file.

[stevesanacore]

I hope Leica doesn't over price the body or the lenses. I am a prime candidate for the S2. I have been using a few Leica R lenses on my Canon's for a while now and the results are fabulous. The only way I could justify the S2 will be if the images are much better than I get now at a reasonable price. I never went with any of the MF options as they were too slow to operate, too cumbersome, and too expensive. But I think anyone already using the Hasse or Mamiya systems will probably stick with them and not move to the S2. I don't see an advantage to them doing so in most cases.

 

The key here is the price has to be reasonable. Personally I think they need to keep the prices at the same (already expensive), Leica R line of gear to remain competitive enough to lure the few Nikon and Canon users who are looking for better quality images.

 

I hope they do well and I hope it performs as we would expect it to. But I'm not sure who would buy the S2 if it's too expensive.

[carstenw]

Leica has stated that the price will be competitive with current digital MF cameras. I think that keeping an eye on the H3DII-39 will give a good indication of the price.

[stevesanacore]

Just got this a few minutes ago from Calumet:

 

H3D-II package for $14,999

 

Includes

H3D-II DSLR Camera System with 31MP Sensor

HC f/2.8 80mm Lens

HVD90x Full Frame Viewfinder

2GB CompactFlash Card

FireWire Cable

FlexColor Software

 

 

And I can imagine that the 39MP version will fall to this level next. So here is probably the prime target for Leica to aim at.

[jrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

<snip>

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

 

 

You're right, of course. But look at all your qualifiers -- You say, "You can OFTEN tell whether an image was LIKELY shot..." Who is "You?" I think you're probably referring to other photographers, and other photographers are not usually the target audience for high end magazine advertisements. As I noted in my post, I was referring to typical intelligent readers looking at a high-end magazine (like Vogue or Vanity Fair.) Most ads are looked at for a second or two at the most, and for content -- MOST people (notice my qualifier) do not sit and analyze the photography. They say, "That's a really nice car," not "That looks like it was shot with a MF back."

 

I was also referring purely to readers, and not to all the other things that matter to photographers -- whether or not the creative director is impressed that you're using a Hassy instead of a D3x (which, I agree, can matter in some cases); or how bright the viewfinder is. A brighter viewfinder, when you're talking about the difference between a top-end Nikon or Canon, and a MF camera, is really a matter of convenience, not necessity. If you can't operate out of a D3x viewfinder, then you probably can't operate out of a Hassy viewfinder. And when you get to discussing those kinds of qualities, would you say that a MF viewfinder is more important -- always -- than the frame rate and fast autofocus of a D3x?

 

An interesting experiment to do some time would be to go through a bunch of top-end magazines and determine what kind of camera the photographers used, and then run them past a focus group to see what the actual response is. I suspect that the choices would be almost random.

 

As for MF resolution and posters, I really wasn't talking about resolution (or maybe I was, but in an odd way.) With the large banner printers now available, you can essentially make the printing resolution as fine as you wish, but only if you have the pixels available -- it's not so much about resolution, as it is about smooth transitions and reasonable skin tones when seen close-up. A big bra banner at Victoria's Secret has to be readable both from down the mall, at fifty yards, and still be viewable through the window at five yards. You simply need pixels, and uprezzing, which has been the answer, isn't really as good as native pixels. Low-res high-grain cinema-verite type shots ("news photos") have been the answer, making the best of a tricky problem, but I've noticed lately that I've been seeing these big banners that actually can be looked at from five feet, and the skin doesn't look like a bunch of circles and squares, and that does not seem to be the result of a paint program. It's pixels.

 

I think Guy has a good point in suggesting that you want to give maximum quality to a client because you don't always know what the use will be, or uses will change. However, I seriously doubt that it would make a whit of difference to either the ad agencies or the sales of products if MF disappeared tomorrow, and all magazines ads were shot with 35. Nor do I really think that shooting with MF makes as much difference as does the photographer you choose to shoot with.

 

JC

[leicapages]

I hate to say it but I suspect that by the time the S2 becomes available to the marketplace, its sensor will be "outdated" in comparison to current MF offerings. So it will have to be quite cheaper than the MF competition for it to be attractive in sustainable numbers...

[wlaidlaw]

Just got this a few minutes ago from Calumet:

 

H3D-II package for $14,999

 

Includes

H3D-II DSLR Camera System with 31MP Sensor

HC f/2.8 80mm Lens

HVD90x Full Frame Viewfinder

2GB CompactFlash Card

FireWire Cable

FlexColor Software

 

 

And I can imagine that the 39MP version will fall to this level next. So here is probably the prime target for Leica to aim at.

 

I too have just had that email from Calumet. For professionals, the H3D is also a more flexible package than the S2 and this price must be causing concern at Solms. I personally would not consider the Hassy, as I don't want to be a candidate for another hernia op. I borrowed an H3D with one of the 50 - 110 zooms and about 30 seconds was my limit for hand holding it up to my eye. If it pushes the S2 kit price down to around $15,000, I will be cheering, as it just about brings it into my consideration. Otherwise I will consider a good condition S/H Contax 645 and P1 back.

 

Wilson

[ptomsu]

Pricing, overpricing, 35mm quality versus MF, S2 in the middle

 

Folks, just all a waste of time. It finally comes down to size of the sensor and how the sensor is built. Remember all the discussions some 2-3 years ago when there were crop DSLRs and some FF DSLRs. And most of us considered the FF DSLRs as superior, while others said that Crop will be enough forever and all futures

 

Now where are crop DSLRs today and what has happened to FF DSLRs? Crop ones are mostly pure amateur equipment, not saying you cannot take serious and great looking shots, but there are certain limits. FF DSLRs are much better and kind of state-of-the-art today for most professional photography and many serious amateurs.

 

The new Leica format (S2) is another step into the right and better IQ direction, but MF (FF MF) as we see today in many MFDB solutions is even better and keeps much more possibilities for the future. You need this? Not sure, but arguing that it is not better and the S2 format brings equal results is just insane

 

We have to face the issue that the larger the sensor the more possibilities we have for higher and better and more fine IQ. PERIOD!

 

All other discussions we should classify under "Bean Counting" or "Nusserlschupfen" as we say in German - which means nothing else than "meaningless efforts" for those speaking only English

Edited April 28, 2009 by ptomsu

[ptomsu]

I hate to say it but I suspect that by the time the S2 becomes available to the marketplace, its sensor will be "outdated" in comparison to current MF offerings. So it will have to be quite cheaper than the MF competition for it to be attractive in sustainable numbers...

 

I am so happy the slowly more and more folks here start seeing this issue the same way I do already since I heard about the S2 and it's sensor size

[SJP]

In fact the S2 sensor should have been less megapixels and with a higher ISO and capture rate. That really would have been revolutionary.

 

What a pity camera companies have to listen to popular demand instead of doing what is technically correct.

[carstenw]

In fact the S2 sensor should have been less megapixels and with a higher ISO and capture rate. That really would have been revolutionary.

 

What a pity camera companies have to listen to popular demand instead of doing what is technically correct.

 

Higher ISO than what? We haven't even seen the results. What a pity that Leica has customers who constantly jump to conclusions and put down their products without knowing enough about them, rather than just waiting for the product to come out so that they can properly evaluate it. What a pity that these same customers would probably roast Leica over hot coals for being secretive if they had *not* given an early preview. What a pity that each of Leica's customers thinks his own needs are the best thing for the company, and ignores competing needs. It seems that Leica cannot win either way.

 

It is sad to note that it appears that very, very few people are willing to wait until the product comes out before taking it apart. What ever happened to patience and innocent until proven guilty? Is that too old-school?

 

I don't mean to jump on your post in particular, SJP, it is just one of many which rub me the wrong way. Louis CK has it right: everything is amazing and no one is happy.

Edited April 28, 2009 by carstenw

[dfarkas]

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

[jrc]

David,

 

You know what you seem to be talking about is what a lot of people hoped for in an R10 -- a DSLR that would jump over or match the offerings from Nikon and Canon, at a more or less comparable price. Maybe that's what the S2 is, but Leica has been afraid to announce that it's the R replacement -- and that the R lenses are now obsolete -- rather than a third level. As a DSLR competitor, the S2 is great. At $8,000, it'd probably sell like hotcakes, even with the expensive glass.

 

JC

[jaapv]

David,

 

You know what you seem to be talking about is what a lot of people hoped for in an R10 -- a DSLR that would jump over or match the offerings from Nikon and Canon, at a more or less comparable price. Maybe that's what the S2 is, but Leica has been afraid to announce that it's the R replacement -- and that the R lenses are now obsolete -- rather than a third level. As a DSLR competitor, the S2 is great. At $8,000, it'd probably sell like hotcakes, even with the expensive glass.

 

JC

Hmmm, that sounds more like the next announcement, the S200, with a 24x36 sensor and R compatability.

[sdai]

I'd eat a cockroach to post in the S2 forum again, but hey, since Leica doesn't keep their words on the R10, I figure that I don't need to keep what I've said on a Internet forum either.

 

The P40+ sports a 16 bits A/D converter and the S2 only has 14 bit ... that's the difference between a real MFDB and a high end 35mm DSLR. That should be reflected in their pricing according IMO

Edited April 28, 2009 by sdai

[sdai]

Hmmm, that sounds more like the next announcement, the S200, with a 24x36 sensor and R compatability.

 

Since Dr. Kaufmann once have mentioned that we need to think out of the box, I think he is quite right ... since Leica has already discontinued the R and there seems to be much technical difficulties in producing a 35mm full frame digital M.

 

What don't they just start something truly from ground up?

 

The Panasonic G1 and Samsung's forthcoming NX are just great examples ... and people will be able to adapt R and M lenses on them without any problem.

[jaapv]

Well, I have a problem - the minisensors and the yukky EVF......

And just imagine putting a 105-280 onto one of those plastic toys...A bit like those enlargement offers I get all the time in my e-mail....

Edited April 28, 2009 by jaapv

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[carstenw]

I'd eat a cockroach to post in the S2 forum again, but hey, since Leica doesn't keep their words on the R10, I figure that I don't need to keep what I've said on a Internet forum either.

 

The P40+ sports a 16 bits A/D converter and the S2 only has 14 bit ... that's the difference between a real MFDB and a high end 35mm DSLR. That should be reflected in their pricing according IMO

 

The lower two bits of Phase backs have been shown to be total garbage. Let's look at the results, not the specs, and take it from there.