Puts' S2 Article

[RRJackson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

HA!

 

Indeed. Still, there's a reason he's had to stick to scanned film as his source material. It's really hard to beat large format 'chromes. My point was that I don't think we're likely to hit a point anytime soon when people decide that they have more resolution than they need.

 

The most interesting aspect of the S2, IMO, is the form factor and the selection of glass that can be used with it hand-held. The 24x36 sensors are topping 20 megapixels now, but the glass is starting to have a hard time keeping up. These new lenses and a bigger sensor to look through them makes the extra resolution way more interesting than it would be in a new Nikon, Canon or Sony.

[Advertisement]

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

[rosuna]

The most interesting aspect of the S2, IMO, is the form factor and the selection of glass that can be used with it hand-held. The 24x36 sensors are topping 20 megapixels now, but the glass is starting to have a hard time keeping up. These new lenses and a bigger sensor to look through them makes the extra resolution way more interesting than it would be in a new Nikon, Canon or Sony.

 

It is more difficult to make high corrected lenses for larger formats...

[rosuna]

My point was that I don't think we're likely to hit a point anytime soon when people decide that they have more resolution than they need.

 

 

It depends on the "people" and which they need. Not many people need or want to make huge prints... In fact, most people don't, so most people will be considering "it is enough".

 

Very important is the real meaning of "megapixel": it is the picture size. All people want more detail given a picture size. But there are limits, determined by the type of ouput of our work, for the picture size we need or want (considering it is not free).

[RRJackson]

It is more difficult to make high corrected lenses for larger formats...

 

But the resolution requirements for the lens aren't as high because of the bigger sensor. I'm no engineer, but it seems like a worthwhile tradeoff.

[RRJackson]

It depends on the "people" and which they need. Not many people need or want to make huge prints... In fact, most people don't, so most people will be considering "it is enough".

 

Very important is the real meaning of "megapixel": it is the picture size. All people want more detail given a picture size. But there are limits, determined by the type of ouput of our work, for the picture size we need or want (considering it is not free).

 

Well, I always had kind of an obsession with the abstract impressionist painters of the 40's and 50's. Guys like Still, Pollock and Rothko...but particularly Still, who had this idea of the scale of the work and its relationship to the viewer. You stand in front of one of those giant Still canvases and its like you've entered another world. It's a picture window into something else.

 

I think that's the thing with Gursky. The scale of it and the amount of detail draw the viewer in even when the subject matter doesn't. The hippest thing I can imagine is being able to capture moments in sufficient detail to print very large and draw a subject standing in front of the photo into that moment. Where they can discover little things like the label on a pack of cigarettes or the caller ID name on the screen of a cell phone.

 

The thing is, less and less people even bother printing these days, but large displays are becoming more and more common. I wouldn't doubt that the day will arrive sooner than we imagine when displays the size of very large mattresses are common in homes for both video and the display of revolving collections of photos and artwork. But now I'm just speculatively ranting.

[rosuna]

Maybe. I would like to see that happen...

 

Who knows...

 

 

There was a trend for gigantinc canvas in the abstract expressionists... That is true of Pollock and many works of Rothko (we have in Madrid, in the Thyssen, a wonderful and really large Rothko painting). It is also true in the paintings of George Mathieu, which I like very much.

[Marty]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back to the article. What "answer" will Photokina 2010 provide?

 

Is it that there will be something new? Great insight.

 

And why is there a fight on two fronts? From what I understand the S2 is neither competing with FF nor MF, not only in price but rather offering a new format that would suit those who wish for more than FF but would feel artistically restricted with MF. The promise of the best optics should eliminate all doubt.

 

The writer (rightly) calls on Leica to create a convincing image and roadmap, and while I hope and believe Leica are working on this, the article itself is not exactly setting a good example getting bogged down in the "tweener" debate all over again, restricted lifespan, "hopeful" technology.

 

Let's be honest, the real questions on everyone's mind are IQ, performance, handling, suitability for the job, and the "answers" I believe will be in the shops to try out very soon.

 

If you do like what you see, there is of course the other issue of whether you can make a living with it or not as a pro, but that's a trivial yes or no. Plus, an S3 may change all that

[jrc]

A question I asked on Luminous Landscape, and might bear repeating here...as resolution gets higher, past a certain point, the camera become more and more difficult to hand-hold, not because of ergonomics, but because the resolution itself is degraded by hand-holding. That is, to make sense of having a 39mp MF camera, you need to mount it on a tripod; otherwise, Canon or a Nikon will get much the same result. And if you're going to mount it on a tripod anyway, ergonomics become much less important, and that perhaps the other MF systems, with different viewing options, become more desirable...would they not?

 

I've also read that while glass may have to be altered somewhat for digital hi-res cameras, the resolving ability of good lenses (Nikon, Canon, et cal) really isn't challenged by the sensors yet. The bigger challenge is in diffraction limits, which make higher ISO ability that much more useful.

 

JC

[Jeff S]

And why is there a fight on two fronts? From what I understand the S2 is neither competing with FF nor MF, not only in price but rather offering a new format that would suit those who wish for more than FF but would feel artistically restricted with MF. The promise of the best optics should eliminate all doubt.

 

Maybe the idea of "competing" is getting in the way. The question is who will be the buyers of the system? The author is suggesting the obvious...either users of DSLRs or MF systems. So, the challenge is getting them to switch to the S2. Otherwise, the likely buyers will have to either keep what they have and add an S2, or else materialize out of thin air. So, even if the S2 is an entirely new concept, it needs to present a convincing case for buyers currently in two camps.

Jeff

[ken_tanaka]

A question I asked on Luminous Landscape, and might bear repeating here...as resolution gets higher, past a certain point, the camera become more and more difficult to hand-hold, not because of ergonomics, but because the resolution itself is degraded by hand-holding. That is, to make sense of having a 39mp MF camera, you need to mount it on a tripod; otherwise, Canon or a Nikon will get much the same result. And if you're going to mount it on a tripod anyway, ergonomics become much less important, and that perhaps the other MF systems, with different viewing options, become more desirable...would they not?

 

I've also read that while glass may have to be altered somewhat for digital hi-res cameras, the resolving ability of good lenses (Nikon, Canon, et cal) really isn't challenged by the sensors yet. The bigger challenge is in diffraction limits, which make higher ISO ability that much more useful.

 

JC

 

Absolutely correct on both points.

 

Debating mega-resolution and detail levels for cameras designed principally to be used for hand-held is rather as pointless as discussing high-performance sports cars for city driving. Even the smallest vibration can degrade a high-res image (film or digital) at modest shutter speeds and make it largely unsuitable for large presentations. Optical image stabilization helps mitigate this, but only to a limited degree. The S2 will fall squarely into this camp.

 

Also true that the resolution limits of high-quality lenses are not being stressed by high-MP sensors. Their bigger issues tend to be edge performance. I don't know the image circle characteristics of the the S2's lenses but I strongly suspect that since Leica controls both the lenses and the sensor we'll see some stellar performance here.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I think most of the buyers will be the 35mm folks that want to move up in resolution and still have the feature set of 35mm

 

The next group will be the M8 shooter looking to stay within Leica but again getting more resolution and getting some Af capabilities. Some of us old farts it is getting harder to use RF but they will have to give up the size of the M8

 

Next you have the R shooters that are grasping for something like the DMR which i owned and loved and not really that far away from it in a lot of ways.

 

The existing MF shooter is the harder area since we have gear today that lost a lot of value and switching system will be tough to do and mostly my case here as well. Just a big gap between my used gear and buying new and adding fresh money to the pile. Plus we are really only buying a feature set that we might like better

 

Some will switch because they want a DSLR style and will take it anyway they can. Cost no object, wish I was one of them. LOL

[AlanG]

Absolutely correct on both points.

 

...Even the smallest vibration can degrade a high-res image (film or digital) at modest shutter speeds and make it largely unsuitable for large presentations. Optical image stabilization helps mitigate this, but only to a limited degree. The S2 will fall squarely into this camp.

 

It is not just vibration and subject movement that will keep one from getting the maximum resolution from any high res camera. Focusing accuracy and depth of field are big factors. Consider that depth of field tables are calculated for looking at an 8x10 print from a normal viewing distance. If you expect to be able to walk up to an extremely large print and see fine detail throughout, you will need a lot of depth of field. (It may be impossible to get enough DOF for near to far subjects with anything but the widest lenses.) On a typical head and shoulder portrait with a 120 or longer lens, on a very large print, you will be able to see the focus drop off very quickly (at any aperture) - assuming you were fortunate enough to nail the focus on the eyes in the first place, and you are shooting at a high shutter speed or have electronic flash.

 

But what is the point of all this detail? Do you really want to see all of the fine hair and blemishes on a pretty woman's face?

 

Here is a crop from D3X file along with something that shows the size of the full image. (This is a photo that a friend took, so I can't show the person or setting.) So this much detail was produced even though it wasn't an extremely tight shot. So then you have to retouch and smooth everything.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[stunsworth]

IBut what is the point of all this detail? Do you really want to see all of the fine hair and blemishes on a pretty woman's face?

 

I thought the point was that you take a high resolution photograph of a model showing every blemish and then airbrush them all out in Photoshop - and maybe make the model a little thinner at the same time. Or maybe that's just in advertising <grin>.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

It is not just vibration and subject movement that will keep one from getting the maximum resolution from any high res camera. Focusing accuracy and depth of field are big factors. Consider that depth of field tables are calculated for looking at an 8x10 print from a normal viewing distance. If you expect to be able to walk up to an extremely large print and see fine detail throughout, you will need a lot of depth of field. (It may be impossible to get enough DOF for near to far subjects with anything but the widest lenses.) On a typical head and shoulder portrait with a 120 or longer lens, on a very large print, you will be able to see the focus drop off very quickly (at any aperture) - assuming you were fortunate enough to nail the focus on the eyes in the first place, and you are shooting at a high shutter speed or have electronic flash.

 

But what is the point of all this detail? Do you really want to see all of the fine hair and blemishes on a pretty woman's face?

 

Here is a crop from D3X file along with something that shows the size of the full image. (This is a photo that a friend took, so I can't show the person or setting.) So this much detail was produced even though it wasn't an extremely tight shot. So then you have to retouch and smooth everything.

 

Honestly that detail is nothing to compare a MF camera with. Trust me it is really detailed but your right airbrushing is a freaking nightmare. LOL

[Rinse]

Yes, I agree with Erwin Puts that the lifespan in the digital world is rather short, but it doesn’t have to be so for this camera.

 

With the S2 Leica has taken a giant leap over the top end Canons and Nikons and ended up with a handheld camera of 37 megapixels. At the moment this is one or two steps ahead of Canon and Nikon. In about two years time Canon and Nikon will have caught up and bring out their 30+ megapixel camera’s. To stay ahead of the pack that should be the time for Leica to bring out the S3 of something between 45 and 50 megapixel and at the same time leave the S2 on the market for another two or three years but at a much reduced price so as to compete directly with the 30+ megapixel Canons and Nikons.

 

To me this would seem like a good strategy to increase the lifespan of the camera to about 5 years and broaden the user base of the S system significantly.

[mjh]

And why is there a fight on two fronts? From what I understand the S2 is neither competing with FF nor MF, not only in price but rather offering a new format that would suit those who wish for more than FF but would feel artistically restricted with MF. The promise of the best optics should eliminate all doubt.

Calling it a fight on two fronts is putting an unnecessarily negative spin on Leica’s strategy. Fighting on two fronts suggests they were making it more difficult for themselves to succeed, when it is just the other way round: The S2 is supposed to draw from two pools of potential customers, namely photographers now working with either 35 mm or MF DSLRs. Increasing the number of potential customers to lure into your camp is a good thing, contrary to what the “two fronts” metaphor suggests.

[AlanG]

Honestly that detail is nothing to compare a MF camera with. Trust me it is really detailed but your right airbrushing is a freaking nightmare. LOL

 

That's why I wonder why the camera is supposed to be so appealing to fashion and portrait shooters. I can understand going after maximum detail in architecture, landscapes, products, etc. But people? Get a super hi res camera, the best lenses, then put a diffuser in front of the lens and retouch it?

[stunsworth]

I can understand going after maximum detail in architecture, landscapes, products, etc. But people?

 

People in fashion shoots are normally wearing cloths <grin>. Making the model's features look 'perfect' is only one aspect of the shoot.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

Yes, I agree with Erwin Puts that the lifespan in the digital world is rather short, but it doesn’t have to be so for this camera.

 

With the S2 Leica has taken a giant leap over the top end Canons and Nikons and ended up with a handheld camera of 37 megapixels. At the moment this is one or two steps ahead of Canon and Nikon. In about two years time Canon and Nikon will have caught up and bring out their 30+ megapixel camera’s. To stay ahead of the pack that should be the time for Leica to bring out the S3 of something between 45 and 50 megapixel and at the same time leave the S2 on the market for another two or three years but at a much reduced price so as to compete directly with the 30+ megapixel Canons and Nikons.

 

To me this would seem like a good strategy to increase the lifespan of the camera to about 5 years and broaden the user base of the S system significantly.

 

I think MF cameras are already reaching diminishing returns with resolution. Once you get to 37 megapixels of the S2, they'll need 74 megapixels for a 50% increase of potential resolution. (Going from 37 to 50 won't make too much difference.) And a 74 megapixel file will produce a 444 megabyte 16 bit RGB file.

[AlanG]

People in fashion shoots are normally wearing cloths <grin>. Making the model's features look 'perfect' is only one aspect of the shoot.

 

Yes of course I understand when you are far enough away. But go to a newsstand and look at how many tight face shots there are on the covers. Then flip through any beauty or fashion magazine and see how many tight face shots there are. Consider how much detail has to be removed via retouching. I doubt if a lack of detail is worrying current MF fashion shooters.