Jeff S Posted August 10, 2009 Share #1 Posted August 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) FWIW, Erwin P. posted an article today regarding the challenges facing the S2. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here Puts' S2 Article. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mgcd Posted August 10, 2009 Share #2 Posted August 10, 2009 Thanks, is there a link? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted August 10, 2009 Share #3 Posted August 10, 2009 It's here: Leica S2: its significance Good article, BTW, although it doesn't really come to a conclusion. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 10, 2009 Share #4 Posted August 10, 2009 Yes- quite balanced. The only niggle I have with it is with the sweeping statement that the lifespan of a digital camera should be two years. I have the impression that the MF segment moves a bit more sedately than that, if only due to the price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 10, 2009 Share #5 Posted August 10, 2009 The only niggle I have with it is with the sweeping statement that the lifespan of a digital camera should be two years. I have the impression that the MF segment moves a bit more sedately than that, if only due to the price. For example, Canon replaced the EOS-1Ds after two years, the EOS-1Ds Mark II after three years, and the EOS-1Ds Mark III is 22 months old. And that’s the lifespan within the vendor’s portfolio, not the useful lifespan of the camera in the hands of a photographer, which will be longer. A usable lifespan of merely two years isn’t a realistic assumption. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted August 10, 2009 Share #6 Posted August 10, 2009 Yes- quite balanced. The only niggle I have with it is with the sweeping statement that the lifespan of a digital camera should be two years. I have the impression that the MF segment moves a bit more sedately than that, if only due to the price. Puts also assumes that N and C will soon introduce 30MP DLSR cameras, however the smaller format's pixel diffraction limits (see http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s2-forum/94593-pixel-limits-may-interest-some-you.html ) and many of the the N and C lenses will limit the utility of cramming more pixels in the small format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 10, 2009 Share #7 Posted August 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very hard exercise to read, the font is too small ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 10, 2009 Share #8 Posted August 10, 2009 If that article on the theoretical limts of photography we are discussing elsewhere has any value, Doug, competition will shift in the camera world, with ergonomics, concept, body quality etc prevailing. That would lengthen the lifespan of a camera like the S2 (or the M9 for that matter) considerably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted August 10, 2009 Share #9 Posted August 10, 2009 I remember reading somewhere that according to Mr Poulsen, CEO of Hasselblad (and founder of Imacon if memory serves), the practical limit for digital MF was around 100Mpix. Not that far away for where we are now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 10, 2009 Share #10 Posted August 10, 2009 Very hard exercise to read, the font is too small ... You should be able to adjust that in your browser. In Firefox "View>Zoom" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted August 10, 2009 Share #11 Posted August 10, 2009 The article was somewhat difficult to follow but the question raised was quite interesting. Can Leica marketing effectively position the S2 in the market place? He puts forth an argument that the S2 has the potential to change the rules and expectations for a market not properly served. N/C/S can not really compete in as a MF field camera ..regardless of how many pixels they can jam into a 24x36 sensor. The mount limitations effectively limit the lens designers . This needs to be proven but I haven t seen anyone stating that any DSLR can compete with MF . Existing MF offerings produce excellent IQ when used in a controlled situation (studio ?). The S2 may not beat the latest 60plus Mp backs but it will compete. So the question is ......two fold.....is there a market for an industrial strength field solution with IQ equal to or better than the best studio MF solutions ? And ..the question EP puts forth ...will anyone understand this ? Sure hope that Leica has given Salgado a few and will feature him and a few others in an ad campaign. Hasselblad seems to have secured Steven McCurry and it will be hard to argue that a Hasselblad dragged thru Afganistan isn t durable and field worthy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 10, 2009 Share #12 Posted August 10, 2009 You should be able to adjust that in your browser. In Firefox "View>Zoom" I didn't know that, Steve. Thanks a lot. As usual, Erwin Puts leaves more questions than answers, guess we all will have to wait till Photokina 2010. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share #13 Posted August 10, 2009 Among the S2 challenges, he didn't seem to mention need to quickly prove reliability and easy service/equipment access for the pro market, nor lack of modularity of components as with MF (which could have pros and cons). And, no discussion of price and the value equation....but that's a given with any buyer decision. I agree, though, that it was relatively balanced. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted August 10, 2009 Share #14 Posted August 10, 2009 Among the S2 challenges, he didn't seem to mention need to quickly prove reliability and easy service/equipment access for the pro market, nor lack of modularity of components as with MF (which could have pros and cons). And, no discussion of price and the value equation....but that's a given with any buyer decision. I agree, though, that it was relatively balanced.Jeff I believe he is taking a slightly different POV and it might be most relevant to the S2 s success. From a marketing perspective ...he is recommending that Leica "position" the S2 as a solution for hand held , potentially environmentally challenging situations. e.g. Salgado s current project,the Luminous Landscape trips to the south pole ,McCurry s work in asia etc. Essentially taking MF IQ into the world of DSLRs. A tool set that separates the work of top end pros and well funded amateurs from DSLR(based on higher IQ) and the existing MF systems based on form,handling and industrial strength. A new class and a premium price. In this way cost effectiveness may not be the most relevant criteria. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share #15 Posted August 10, 2009 I believe he is taking a slightly different POV and it might be most relevant to the S2 s success. From a marketing perspective ...he is recommending that Leica "position" the S2 as a solution for hand held , potentially environmentally challenging situations. e.g. Salgado s current project,the Luminous Landscape trips to the south pole ,McCurry s work in asia etc. Essentially taking MF IQ into the world of DSLRs. A tool set that separates the work of top end pros and well funded amateurs from DSLR(based on higher IQ) and the existing MF systems based on form,handling and industrial strength. A new class and a premium price. In this way cost effectiveness may not be the most relevant criteria. Yes, I understand this. But, he specifically talks about need to convince 2 audiences, one of which is the MF crowd, and the challenges getting them to shift. I think the issues I mentioned will be among the challenges. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted August 10, 2009 Share #16 Posted August 10, 2009 Among the S2 challenges, he didn't seem to mention need to quickly prove reliability and easy service/equipment access for the pro market, nor lack of modularity of components as with MF (which could have pros and cons). And, no discussion of price and the value equation....but that's a given with any buyer decision. I agree, though, that it was relatively balanced.Jeff Agree there are some big issues to overcome or maybe better said satisfy the real needs of Pro's. Many MF shooters today will not do a lateral to the S2. Some may but the cost to switch is way too great with Leica pricing and our used gear unloading value. It's a DSLR style and even than comes up short to the N and C in someways and it will not exceed MF backs today either. It's a tweener to be real honest and has some really nice features which for Hassy and Phase is only really a body away at 4k. No LCD improvement until you get to the back but there are many limits on the S2 that will not fly with many MF shooters. For some shooters though it is a perfect concept and would not mind one myself actually but the price tag is killing me and i simply can't justify the switch in this economy. Not enough ROI on it and a lot of folks are in this same boat. We have to remember the Hassy and Phase, Sinar and Leaf folks are already today getting outstanding imaging from what we have, the S2 will not change that but will make certain types of shooting somewhat easier. It's really the feature set that some want and really all that has to be done today for Hassy and Phase is greatly improve there body to get some more ergonomics and shutter lag. The issue with Phase is the body is based on film and they need a body based on digital and it's needs. No question any Phase shooter will say the same thing we simply need a new body. Rumored end of summer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 10, 2009 Share #17 Posted August 10, 2009 I remember reading somewhere that according to Mr Poulsen, CEO of Hasselblad (and founder of Imacon if memory serves), the practical limit for digital MF was around 100Mpix. Not that far away for where we are now. In the discussions in The Luminous Landscape about this subject there are two different points of view. The first one (1) considers the pixel as the minimum circle of confussion. Systems should be evaluated considering the pixel size (and 100% magnification on screen) as the point of reference. This line of reasoning can be seen in the discussions about diffraction limit and pixel resolution. The only problem here is how to relate pixel size and Airy disk diameter, because it depends on the nature of the real detail to be photographed. Isolate points have different requirements than line pairs, etc. The second one (2) considers the circle of confusion (depending on human visual accuity, viewing distance, size of the print, etc.). This line of rasoning puts the limits below that of the first way of thinking. The point here is the final output (the print), and not the matrix input (the sensor, or the RAW file), is that counts. The two arguments are valid to some extent. Where is the limit in total number of pixels? Is it determined by diffraction limits (1) or by print size/resolution convenience (2)? I think the first approach (1) is more rigorous for technical discussion, but the second approach (2) can be the relevant one for market discussion. The idea is, even if you can have a 100Mp camera not limited by diffraction (thanks to a highly corrected lens), what is the practical utility of so high resolution? I am not thinking on special applications, but on the typical professional applications of photography, with a printed output (magazines, books) or published online (internet). Considering the maximum size of the publication, and the maximum resolution (pixel per milimeter), you have a maximum useful resolution (with a margin for crops, etc.). A way for improvement would be more information per pixel (full color information instead of an interpolated result, more bit depth, etc.), but no more pixels. The only practical utility of 100Mp would be the use of 4 bayer (input) pixels for getting 1 output pixel... only if a bayer 100Mp is easier to manufacture than a 25Mp Foveon sensor... There are technical limits to the increase in resolution (diffraction is one of them), but I think there are also market/practical limits. Even if computers get more and more powerful and storage space gets cheaper, the practical utility of larger and larger pictures is doubtful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRJackson Posted August 10, 2009 Share #18 Posted August 10, 2009 Even if computers get more and more powerful and storage space gets cheaper, the practical utility of larger and larger pictures is doubtful. Until you stand in front of a 12-foot wide Gursky print and realize you can't come close to printing that much detail from your work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_tanaka Posted August 10, 2009 Share #19 Posted August 10, 2009 Until you stand in front of a 12-foot wide Gursky print and realize you can't come close to printing that much detail from your work. Indeed, neither can Gursky! After his 8x10 negatives are scanned a small army of young retouchers work on the digital images literally pixel-by-pixel in Photoshop for weeks to maximize local contrast, eliminate artifacts and unwanted content, etc. Many of his images are also digitally stitched from several 8x10 negatives. My point: When you look at that "12 foot" Gursky you are not looking at something that came directly from the camera. They've been treated with expensive dazzle dust, befitting their prices in the art market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 10, 2009 Share #20 Posted August 10, 2009 Until you stand in front of a 12-foot wide Gursky print and realize you can't come close to printing that much detail from your work. There are specific applications for which you need really large pictures. The larger the better. But those applications cannot sustain a specific line of products from several competitors. For many applications you needed MF resolutions, but that level of detail are now provided by pro 35mm format cameras. Then, there are yet applications for which you need more, but the potential buyers of equipment for those applications decrease... The same goes with resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.