S2 under pricing pressure

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

everything is amazing and no one is happy.

In fact I am very happy indeed & have no gripes with Leica's strategy on the S2 the M8 or otherwise. The point I was trying to make was that I do not believe that "more pixels = better camera" contrary to what the previous post was suggesting.

 

For me the S2 is exciting because it is a new niche for Leica & it looks competitive. It will certainly not be outdated if the glassware is as good as they seem to be suggesting.

 

If you feel like jumping on the unsatisfied part of the l-camera-forum nation - be my guest you have my full support.

Edited April 28, 2009 by SJP

[sdai]

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.

 

You've made it sound just too simple, if the lower 2 bits are garbage why don't Phase just go for 14 bits and make the back shoot faster?

 

Even the lowly Digital Rebel runs at 14 bits now.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jack MacDonough]

David,

Thanks for the heads up regarding the Phase One +40 at $20,000 for a back only. You are right, they really hate the LCD display.

I think we can now start a new thread, "S2 vs Phase One +40" because this thread's title of "S2 under pricing pressure" no longer seems to apply. Phase One knows they have a great +65 but at $40,000 they may be the one under pricing pressure from the S2.

 

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.

 

If I had to take off the back of a Canon 1DsIII every time I wanted to go from vertical to horizontal, I would scratch a few sensors myself.

 

Of course the last medium format film camera I used was a Pentax 6x7 which handled like a big 35mm, so one can see why I like the S2 set up, and I have no issues with lens legacy, since I have no other medium format lenses. The removable back was handy when one needed to switch rolls of film fast in a studio. Give me an integrated digital solution, not the leftovers from the film age.

[sdai]

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....

 

I hate plastic toys too but hey, that's when Leica could kick in and put a full metal jacket on it.

 

Now I've tried adapting R/M lenses on different bodies, using manual focus lenses on a AF body is always a compromise to say the least, even on the best Canon/Nikon models. If I'm gonna buy a AF Leica camera then I'll buy some AF Leica lenses. The legacy R lenses are kept for the R9.

 

If Leica is serious, that's the direction. While new customers flood in, the R/M adaptability will be bonuses to keep the old campers happy.

[sdai]

A removeable back is the single biggest advantage of a true medium format system over the S2. It opens the door of all kinds of opportunities to you, this would enable you to choose from different vendors' products, easy upgrade to newer technology, etc.

 

By adopting an integrated solution, you are basically betting your life on one shot. When upgrade comes, you have to repay a big chunk of money for a bunch reuseable parts which may never be broken built on Leica's standards.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

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.

 

Carsten I know where this data came from and i would be absolutely sure this is truly the case. I would like to see real proof from Phase before I bought into this to be honest. I think there is a agenda behind this source.

[dfarkas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A removeable back is the single biggest advantage of a true medium format system over the S2. It opens the door of all kinds of opportunities to you, this would enable you to choose from different vendors' products, easy upgrade to newer technology, etc.

 

For me, and others I speak to, the S2 being a fully-integrated digital solution is one of the single biggest advantages over other MF systems. An integrated system can be smaller, lighter, and fully weather sealed.There is less variability in proper imaging path alignment than in a traditional lens/body/back combination.

 

So what if you have to upgrade the entire camera? The lenses stay the same and your residual value in a 2-3 year old system is greater than zero, which means you don't outlay the entire amount. In MFD, the camera body is an afterthought and a very small investment relative to the digital back. So, you change out your back and save a few hundred bucks. Whoo hoo! Or, better yet, you have to move to the new AFD DFII or H3D-IV (yes, these are made up for illustrative purposes) to use your new digital back (or even new lens). Either way, this argument of swapping backs and keeping the camera is silly.

 

I believe that the benefits offered by an integrated solution like the S2 outweigh the disadvantages (for me and others I know). I don't use a tech camera and probably never will. Very few of my customers use a tech camera and probably never will. In fact, What percentage of photographers actually use a tech camera now? 5%? 10%?

 

David

[Guest guy_mancuso]

A removeable back is the single biggest advantage of a true medium format system over the S2. It opens the door of all kinds of opportunities to you, this would enable you to choose from different vendors' products, easy upgrade to newer technology, etc.

 

By adopting an integrated solution, you are basically betting your life on one shot. When upgrade comes, you have to repay a big chunk of money for a bunch reuseable parts which may never be broken built on Leica's standards.

 

This happens to be a HUGE valid point . I just switched backs TODAY to a P30+ from my P25+. Also I have been on shoots and actually used all 4 of the Phase backs plus tech camera's. This is a big downside to a integrated body/sensor. Also you go down you could have a backup body on hand or even a backup back on hand. To me this is NOT MF photography but a glorified DSLR and frankly should stay on that side of the fence. Not many will be switching from Hassy, Phase, Leaf and Sinar we are giving up to much flexibility . This is better suited to go after the high end DSLR folks at least there is a market there. After what i just paid for a P30+ back i could have bought 2 backs for what the S2 will be. Again this camera the S2 should be priced at 15k with lens and body out the door. That is twice the price of a D3x and that maybe even too much for only a 50 percent increase in sensor size. I honestly disagree with a lot that is written here when it comes to MF and where this S2 fits in. Sorry Leica fans, I like the S2 a lot but again it is a tweener and people are forgetting that. I think that is the last I will talk about this, but it is frustrating to here all the glory when it is not on the street. Let's talk again when it is real and out on the streets and can be tested in the field. I'm off to go produce work

[Guest guy_mancuso]

For me, and others I speak to, the S2 being a fully-integrated digital solution is one of the single biggest advantages over other MF systems. An integrated system can be smaller, lighter, and fully weather sealed.There is less variability in proper imaging path alignment than in a traditional lens/body/back combination.

 

So what if you have to upgrade the entire camera? The lenses stay the same and your residual value in a 2-3 year old system is greater than zero, which means you don't outlay the entire amount. In MFD, the camera body is an afterthought and a very small investment relative to the digital back. So, you change out your back and save a few hundred bucks. Whoo hoo! Or, better yet, you have to move to the new AFD DFII or H3D-IV (yes, these are made up for illustrative purposes) to use your new digital back (or even new lens). Either way, this argument of swapping backs and keeping the camera is silly.

 

I believe that the benefits offered by an integrated solution like the S2 outweigh the disadvantages (for me and others I know). I don't use a tech camera and probably never will. Very few of my customers use a tech camera and probably never will. In fact, What percentage of photographers actually use a tech camera now? 5%? 10%?

 

David

 

 

Sorry my friend but this is where we completely disagree. Some folks actually shoot MF photography and the need for separate is a extremely valid one for MANY reasons.

Edited April 29, 2009 by guy_mancuso

[AlanG]

A removeable back is the single biggest advantage of a true medium format system over the S2. It opens the door of all kinds of opportunities to you, this would enable you to choose from different vendors' products, easy upgrade to newer technology, etc.

 

I agree although there are conveniences of the integrated system. And if the camera does provides enough resolution and features for you, there may not be a need to upgrade for some time. The problem of removing the back to switch from horizontal to vertical is mostly an issue for some technical cameras. You can simply rotate most other cameras. (And I believe some technical cameras have rotating backs but this could limit them for short lenses.)

 

The Leaf AFi (Rollei) can turn the sensor from vertical to horizontal internally without removing the back. The Sinar Hy6 (same Rollei camera) has a version with a rotating back. This is possible because the Rollei cameras are 6x6. In general I think the Rollei system is interesting for a variety of reasons although by itself it is somewhat lens limited for wide angle work. However, the back and lenses can be removed and used on the Linhof Techno. And you could get other lenses for the Linhof Techno including a very wide 23mm. Also consider that the Rollei lenses are made for 6x6 so they'll have some movements on the Techno when used with an MF digital back.

 

The Rollei 6000 system had prism finders that could rotate. This was a very handy feature when the camera was against a wall, aiming down or in some other awkward positions. I think on the AFi and Hy6, the prisms can be repositioned at 90 degree angles to the lens. But I'm sure the Leaf AFi + Rollei lenses + Linhof Techno + Rollei Lens Control S + 23mm lens is pretty expensive.

 

So all of this illustrates that if you don't need T/S movements, the systems are much easier to compare. If you do need movements you might have to piece together lenses, adapters, backs, and bodies from several makers to get what you need. And there are a lot of things to research.

 

Every year I have been going to the PhotoExpo in NYC and studying this stuff and there is steady progress in MF digital. But it takes a major effort to sort through the features, options, pricing, and limitations of each system. And I'm still kind of ignorant. By comparison, the S2 is pretty simple to understand on paper.

 

I expect to have all of my info in hand by the time my $38,850.00 from Nigeria comes in this summer. Guy, when I get the money, forget that measly 10%. I'll send you 20% even though I don't really know you. I'm just feeling so happy today. Then both of us can stop worrying about the photo business.

Edited April 29, 2009 by AlanG

[AlanG]

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

 

.

 

Judging from my tests, it doesn't seem like a sweeping conclusion to me.

 

A sweeping conclusion would be more along the lines of, "The 5D is capable of shooting images with more resolution than the M8 under most conditions." Another reasonable conclusion might be, "The 5DII and a good lens, used so as to get the most out of it, is likely to produce more resolution than an M8 would under many conditions."

Edited April 29, 2009 by AlanG

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I agree although there are conveniences of the integrated system. And if the camera does provides enough resolution and features for you, there may not be a need to upgrade for some time. The problem of removing the back to switch from horizontal to vertical is mostly an issue for some technical cameras. You can simply rotate most other cameras. (And I believe some technical cameras have rotating backs but this could limit them for short lenses.)

 

The Leaf AFi (Rollei) can turn the sensor from vertical to horizontal internally without removing the back. The Sinar Hy6 (same Rollei camera) has a version with a rotating back. This is possible because the Rollei cameras are 6x6. In general I think the Rollei system is interesting for a variety of reasons although by it self it is somewhat lens limited for wide angle work. However, the back and lenses can be removed and used on the Linhof Techno. And you could get other lenses for the Linhof Techno including a very wide 23mm. Also consider that the Rollei lenses are made for 6x6 so they'll have some movements on the Techno when used with an MF digital back.

 

The Rollei 6000 system had prism finders that could rotate. This was a very handy feature when the camera was against a wall, aiming down or in some other awkward positions. I think on the AFi and Hy6, the prisms can be repositioned at 90 degree angles to the lens. But I'm sure the Leaf AFi + Rollei lenses + Linhof Techno + Rollei Lens Control S + 23mm lens is pretty expensive.

 

So all of this illustrates that if you don't need T/S movements, the systems are much easier to compare. If you do need movements you might have to piece together lenses, adapters, backs, and bodies from several makers to get what you need. And there are a lot of things to research.

 

Every year I have been going to the PhotoExpo in NYC and studying this stuff and there is steady progress in MF digital. But it takes a major effort to sort through the features, options, pricing, and limitations of each system. And I'm still kind of ignorant. By comparison, the S2 is pretty simple to understand on paper.

 

I expect to have all of my info in hand by the time my $38,850.00 from Nigeria comes in this summer. Guy, when I get the money, forget that measly 10%. I'll send you 20% even though I don't really know you. I'm just feeling so happy today. Then both of us can stop worrying about the photo business.

 

Right on brother , think I will get into something more relaxing like selling umbrella's at the beach. LOL

[AlanG]

Right on brother , think I will get into something more relaxing like selling umbrella's at the beach. LOL

 

I meant $35,850,000.00. That's $7.17 million for you. If it doesn't come through I still have the shoeshine kit my grandmother gave me.

Edited April 29, 2009 by AlanG

[dfarkas]

This happens to be a HUGE valid point . I just switched backs TODAY to a P30+ from my P25+. Also I have been on shoots and actually used all 4 of the Phase backs plus tech camera's. This is a big downside to a integrated body/sensor. Also you go down you could have a backup body on hand or even a backup back on hand. To me this is NOT MF photography but a glorified DSLR and frankly should stay on that side of the fence. Not many will be switching from Hassy, Phase, Leaf and Sinar we are giving up to much flexibility . This is better suited to go after the high end DSLR folks at least there is a market there. After what i just paid for a P30+ back i could have bought 2 backs for what the S2 will be. Again this camera the S2 should be priced at 15k with lens and body out the door. That is twice the price of a D3x and that maybe even too much for only a 50 percent increase in sensor size. I honestly disagree with a lot that is written here when it comes to MF and where this S2 fits in. Sorry Leica fans, I like the S2 a lot but again it is a tweener and people are forgetting that. I think that is the last I will talk about this, but it is frustrating to here all the glory when it is not on the street. Let's talk again when it is real and out on the streets and can be tested in the field. I'm off to go produce work

 

Guy,

 

The S2 sensor is essentially THE SAME SIZE as the P30+ you just got today. Are you insinuating that your digital back is a "tweener" back?

 

And I believe that the S2 is now directly comparable to the newly leaked/announced P40+. Same size, same pixel pitch, same resolution, same ISO range, same pixel-binning ability. And, while the P30+ only cost you X dollars, the P40+ carries a $20K price tag for a back only. Or, do you think that the P40+ and P1 645 body should only cost a little more than a D3x because the sensor is only 58% larger?!

 

Curious double standard here. If the S2 proves to be smaller, lighter, faster, more ergonomic, more rugged/weather-proof, with superior optics and dual shutter options (and longer exposure times than 60 secs) ...at the same exact (or a little better) quality as this new P40+, where is the problem? And what would make the digital back reasonable at $20K and the S2 a no-go at the same price?

 

Daivd

[Gentleman Villain]

For me, and others I speak to, the S2 being a fully-integrated digital solution is one of the single biggest advantages over other MF systems. An integrated system can be smaller, lighter, and fully weather sealed.There is less variability in proper imaging path alignment than in a traditional lens/body/back combination.

 

So what if you have to upgrade the entire camera? The lenses stay the same and your residual value in a 2-3 year old system is greater than zero, which means you don't outlay the entire amount. In MFD, the camera body is an afterthought and a very small investment relative to the digital back. So, you change out your back and save a few hundred bucks. Whoo hoo! Or, better yet, you have to move to the new AFD DFII or H3D-IV (yes, these are made up for illustrative purposes) to use your new digital back (or even new lens). Either way, this argument of swapping backs and keeping the camera is silly.

 

I believe that the benefits offered by an integrated solution like the S2 outweigh the disadvantages (for me and others I know). I don't use a tech camera and probably never will. Very few of my customers use a tech camera and probably never will. In fact, What percentage of photographers actually use a tech camera now? 5%? 10%?

 

David

 

I completely agree with everything that you wrote. The main reason I've stayed away from digital MF for all these years is because of the fact that the currently available systems aren't fully integrated and I just know that's going to lead to lots of gremlins creeping up on me when working in the field.

 

The S2 sounds like a brilliant system.

 

I remember an interview that you posted on your blog about how the lack of a removable back on the S2 will allow it to have a smoother transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas of an image. That one single advantage is enough for me to get excited about an integrated system...and I'm sure there will be many more advantages too

[c6gowin]

...In fact, What percentage of photographers actually use a tech camera now? 5%? 10%?

 

That is an interesting question David. I wonder what the answer is purely out of curiosity.

 

Mark

[sdai]

So what if you have to upgrade the entire camera? The lenses stay the same and your residual value in a 2-3 year old system is greater than zero, which means you don't outlay the entire amount. In MFD, the camera body is an afterthought and a very small investment relative to the digital back. So, you change out your back and save a few hundred bucks. Whoo hoo! Or, better yet, you have to move to the new AFD DFII or H3D-IV (yes, these are made up for illustrative purposes) to use your new digital back (or even new lens). Either way, this argument of swapping backs and keeping the camera is silly.

 

Well, you've chose not to mention - with a integrated system such as the S2, your sensor's physical size is deadlocked at 30x45, while other companies race ahead with bigger sensors with (much) more pixels, Leica could only sigh - you have no room to grow.

 

And Leica's advantages in optics can be easily offset by a bigger sensor with lower enlargement factor.

 

I agree the camera parts are peanuts when compared to the digital parts but Phase One is almost giving them away for free, can Leica give you a camera with a standard lens for only 2000 dollars? not a chance.

 

Most important of all, the P40+ is ready to ship TODAY ... I'm afraid even Stefan Schulz doesn't know of a definite date for his S2. By the time he is ready, Phase One is ready to make the next round of money.

Edited April 29, 2009 by sdai

[sdai]

One more thing, although the pixel pitches are the same ... P40+ doesn't use the same technology found in S2's Kodak sensor. Phase and Hassy are all switching to DALSA.

 

Also, unlike the S2, P40+ doesn't use micro lens on its sensor so it won't generate the lens cast with tilt and shift movement.

Edited April 29, 2009 by sdai

[rob_x2004]

more rugged/weather-proof, with

 

They have never done it on any camera before, they are looking at it with this one? Out of interest when is it due out?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dfarkas]

One more thing, although the pixel pitches are the same ... P40+ doesn't use the same technology found in S2's Kodak sensor. Phase and Hassy are all switching to DALSA.

 

Hassy is using Kodak 6um sensors in their upcoming 50 and 60 MP backs, not Dalsa. Unfortunately, the Dalsa 6um tech only allows for a 60 second max exposure time. The S2 doesn't have this limitation.

 

Also, unlike the S2, P40+ doesn't use micro lens on its sensor so it won't generate the lens cast with tilt and shift movement.

 

And, the S2 is the only MFD that will offer offset microlenses that correct for sensor-based vignetting and lens casts during normal shooting. The P40+ will have to rely on LCC corrections in software for this. You are not tied to any particular RAW processing software with the S2 as no s/w corrections need to be performed to reach optimal results and the DNG is an open standard, not proprietary.

 

David