Puts' S2 Article

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People may need to buy a new set of lenses, but the new bodies don't have to be bigger and heavier because Leica has just showed to the Japanese companies how to make it happen and I'm sure they'll make it even better.

 

Japanese lenses are cheap, right? it will certainly make the decision a lot easier.

 

Canon and Nikon controls every key component of their cameras - end to end, and they're mass production experts in the mean time. If you let them build the S2, it probably will never cost more than 10 grand US per unit, everybody on this forum will be happy.

 

Dealers will be happy too because they earn more from selling more.

 

Simon part of that size for Canon and Nikon is all about speed and batteries to sustain it. Once you put the extra battery drive on the S2 it gets the same size as the Nikon or Canon but still slower. But you are correct they do have room for a bigger sensor in there body but it's speed will slow down to the S2 speed. Takes a lot of juice to push BIG files and sustained speeds . Canon and Nikon can make great lenses to rival almost anyone , for them there just is not a market at their price points. But just take for example their long glass which is very high end but they know sports shooters will pay for that quality in those lenses. The rest of the line it's more consumers but they do have some great glass available but at a price. They have to cater to the consumers but still keep the Pro's happy. They have their balance

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I don’t believe either Canon or Nikon would enter the MF market. Yes, you can make the case for MF; that’s why MF exists. But is there anything for Canon or Nikon to gain from introducing a new MF system?

 

Both vendors have highly sucessful 35 mm/APS-C DSLR systems. For most photographers, especially amateurs, models like the D3X or EOS-1Ds Mark III define high-end photography. When you buy a lowly EOS 1000D or D5000, you feel like you’ve joined the same club that professional photographers working with the top-of-the-line cameras are members of. That’s a huge selling point, and it helps Canon and Nikon raking in cash, more than sales of the EOS-1Ds Mark III or D3X as such do.

 

If Canon or Nikon would introduce MF DSLRs, what net effect would that have on their revenue? Compared to the 35 mm and APS-C DSLR market, the MF market is negligible. It is a market where relatively small vendors like Hasselblad or Phase One can survive, but for the likes of Canon or Nikon it wouldn’t make much of a difference even if they got 50 percent of it each.

 

On the other hand, such a move would send a clear signal to their existing customers: 35 mm DSLRs don’t cut it anymore. If you think an EOS-1Ds Mark III or D3X are truly high-end, think again. And if you have just bought an entry-level DSLR and believe you could, in principle anyway, slowly work your way up, buying a couple of lenses now, a new body then, still more lenses later, and so on until you own one of the top-of-the-line professional models – well, you can’t get there from here. True high-end cameras are part of a different and incompatible system, sorry ’bout that.

 

So I don’t think Canon or Nikon would go there. For them, there’s not really that much to gain, but a lot to lose.

 

Tend to agree here . The MF market is a really tough nut to crack and integrated bodies are not really the norm. The S2 does give us that one benefit for some shooters but after that it's going up against Hassy and Phase which have the market share and network already out there and also the confidence of the MF shooters. Canon and Nikon may stretch there bodies to a 30 mpx but even still the existing lenses except for a small number out there will not be able to handle that sensor. So they have to up there game but with that comes price and again they cater to a market that is more sensitive on price and consumers. Also Nikon and Canon are after speed and noise reduction and both of those are not the larger sensors strong suits. The larger sensor is completely after IQ and pretty much everything else is secondary not for Canon or Nikon there primary is no moire , no noise and fast as can be that is what they can sell.

 

Just a small example of that is the D3x which maybe the best high end DSLR at the moment but also a tough sell. Why one is price the other is it lost it's speed and reality is it sort of jumped half -ass into the MF realm, not quite there but barking at the door.

[sdai]

So I don’t think Canon or Nikon would go there. For them, there’s not really that much to gain, but a lot to lose.

 

It is only my guess first of all, second ... even if happens, it doesn't necessarily mean to gain or to lose but certainly will fortify their position against competition.

 

Canon alone has created 3 different formats (1.6x, 1.3x and 1.0x), each caters to a specific market segment, and they did bother to build a collection of EF-S lenses for whatever reason.

 

The impact on R/D cost is minimal because their technology platform is mature and robust.

 

Looking from another perspective, "if" Nikon and/or Canon do bother to launch a quasi MF system, their target will naturally be set on the current high end users, who are least cost conscious. As the cost of traditional 35mm FF continue to be driven down, they can be shifted downward to the current semi pro/serious amateur market. 50D, Rebel et al can continue to serve the toys department.

 

Their effort is minimal because the electronics are ready made and can be shared across the board, all they need is a collection of 6 or perhaps 7 new lenses, and a ad campaign. What's so difficult? of course. It's only my speculation, and they probably will never bother with it at all like you've said.

[sdai]

Tend to agree here . The MF market is a really tough nut to crack and integrated bodies are not really the norm.

 

As high end 35mm FF quality approaches the low end MF models and the emersion of quasi MF models such as the S2, what will set the traditional MF contenders apart from the new comers are the digital backs' flexbility and its "room" to grow in terms of the sensors' physical size ... keeping the back interchangeable and "open" to as many mounts as possible have never become more important IMHO.

[rosuna]

So I don’t think Canon or Nikon would go there. For them, there’s not really that much to gain, but a lot to lose.

 

I agree.

 

I think Canon, Nikon and Sony will push the 35mm resolution limit towards 30-40MP in the short term (one year, two years time frame; lets see the next 1Ds Mark IV). That image size surpasses almost any requirement for any professional output (book prints, gallery prints, press, internet pics... any). Some people will ask for even higher image sizes? Yes, but that will mean a very small niche (currently, 10,000 units per year, but most of them for equipment of less than 39MP). The 35mm format is enough to get all the cake. MF can be the support for very specific requirements regarding image size, or a different medium due to asthetic differences. This is the treat of the japanese companies to the MF linked companies (and now Leica), and not a invasion in the form of Canon or Nikon MF cameras.

 

Canon and Sony are more concerned and worried with the evolution of different markets, also huge in size and narrowly related with digital still capture: video capture, and any hybrid equipment. And then television, projectors, etc.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

As high end 35mm FF quality approaches the low end MF models and the emersion of quasi MF models such as the S2, what will set the traditional MF contenders apart from the new comers are the digital backs' flexbility and its "room" to grow in terms of the sensors' physical size ... keeping the back interchangeable and "open" to as many mounts as possible have never become more important IMHO.

 

Very true , there is room for the S2 but maybe only the S2. It is nice to have one system that is integrated but it also comes at some liability and whatever player is in this needs to be very careful. There is no doubt in my mind the S2 will produce , really why anyone is worried is nuts on that end. That is really not the issue Leica is facing, It has great features and built for speed but being integrated has it's own downfall. We ahve gone over this at length on my feelings on those limitations and they are real but the S2 has some nice pluses for this type of shooter which honestly I am a more DSLR shooter but many things come into play before writing that check. It's not a 12k Nikon system you are buying that if you don't like it you can sell it. This is driving a car off the lot and losing a load of money as soon as it hits the asphalt and the price tag is really high in MF to actually write that check to begin with. My balance point and always has been go in eye's wide open and know what the hell you are doing a mistake here on any MF system is a deadly path if you don't like it. Some don't , me not sure I could ever go backwards again. I'm here and I'm staying here. The images just knock your socks off and if your a IQ pig than there is no hope to get out once you are in. But getting in is a big step and I really just want folks to know what they are doing.

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is only my guess first of all, second ... even if happens, it doesn't necessarily mean to gain or to lose but cert

 

 

mjh has explained the importance of the 35mm format in the business model of the japanese giants. From a theory of games perspective the problem of one of these getting into the MF area is the other two players (Canon, Nikon, Sony) will be forced to do the same (Canon did it when they developed the 35mm digital format, and Nikon was unable to sustain their bet for APS-C format as the pro format). But there is no enough room for three players of that size there, in the MF market. It is a small cake, and in the end you have to split it in three portions. Even considering that, the cake will reduce its size when the 35mm format matures. MF cannot offer any decisive advantage or difference for a large enough part of the current potential customers of high end equipment.

[stunsworth]

Canon and Nikon controls every key component of their cameras - end to end, and they're mass production experts in the mean time.

 

Which is why they're unlikely to be interested in a low volume medium like a digital MF. Just as they're uninterested in a digital RF for the same reason.

[sdai]

Why does mf have to be low volume? when nikon/canon work on it it will become a mass production item.

 

I don't want to make myself sound like a broken record but honestly a quasi mf system from nikon and/or canon is imminent.

 

I'm only going to give you two reasons from 2 different perspectives because I'm typing on a iphone in a commuter train.

 

One, current 35mm ff is already technically limted. At 24mp, the D3x sensor's diffraction limit is already hit at f/10. If it goes around 30mp, the sensor's diffraction limit will be hit at around f/8. A lot of applications will be severely limited. The only solution is to go quasi mf.

 

Two, nikon, canon both will need a high margin product line to drive up their profit and this can't be done with 35mm FF because it's already approaching the sub 2000 US territory.

 

It's only a matter of timing.

 

Both can continue to do traditonal 35mm FF. Just like Volkswagen, they build many craps while maintaining Bugattis, Lamborghinis and now taking Porsche.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Simon I think the simple answer is one word VOLUME. Nikon and Canon breath this business model everyday. One reason they are so big is put out tons of volume and low cost and flood the market than as usual people that buy the Rebel will wind up buying the Pro model and so on and so forth. MF there is no Rebel to start, you jump in with a fist full of money on at least a above middle of the road setup and it is not cheap.

[sdai]

Simon I think the simple answer is one word VOLUME. Nikon and Canon breath this business model everyday. One reason they are so big is put out tons of volume and low cost and flood the market than as usual people that buy the Rebel will wind up buying the Pro model and so on and so forth. MF there is no Rebel to start, you jump in with a fist full of money on at least a above middle of the road setup and it is not cheap.

 

Exactly, Guy ... also high end products are being mass produced too. If Leica could crank out 8000-10000 S2s per month like Canon does with the 1D or Nikon does with the D3, the unit cost can be driven down dramatically. But hang on, a typical S2 customer will only buy hand-made products and perhaps price is part of its specification because of bragging rights.

 

I'm actually thinking that price is one of S2's major selling point, like LV, Prada, etc, if they can be had cheaply, they're not what they're supposed to be.

[stunsworth]

If Leica could crank out 8000-10000 S2s per month...

 

There is more chance of Burnley winning the Premiership.

[sdai]

There is more chance of Burnley winning the Premiership.

 

hey hey, you've got the idea, Steve. LOL

[jrc]

The idea of Canon/Nikon moving to MF is an interesting one. Nikon seemed reluctant even to go to 24mp, because of the inherent problems of a small-pixel sensor -- so their first full frame camera, and one of the current front line FF cameras, is the 12mp D3.

 

Nikon is also somewhat limited by an obsolete mount. Canon moved up in size a few years ago, which was, in retrospect, a pretty good move.

 

But consider this: Nikon has a whole bunch of experience using two lens sizes (the DX and the FX) on the same crop-frame cameras, like the the D300. What if they pulled a 39MP sensor with a new mount out of the bag, but a mount that was fully compatible, with an included adapter, of all the Nikon FX lenses -- they would simply work like DX lenses do, that is, give you a cropped ~24mp shot. That way, you could buy what is essentially a Nikon MF camera, but use all your old lenses (something that Leica should have tried to arrange with the S2 and the R lenses.)

 

I don't think that concept is outrageous at all -- especially if they brought the camera in at $12,000 or so, and new buyers could upgrade over a few years, buying their most-needed MF lenses first, and their older, but excellent, Nikon FX glass for other things. All Nikon would have to do is come up with a new mount and buy the sensor -- their firmware and software and electronics are already pretty well developed. Even the flash system could be retained...

[wildlightphoto]

... consider this: Nikon has a whole bunch of experience using two lens sizes (the DX and the FX) on the same crop-frame cameras, like the the D300. What if they pulled a 39MP sensor with a new mount out of the bag, but a mount that was fully compatible, with an included adapter, of all the Nikon FX lenses ..

 

They'd face the same problems Leica would if they tried putting R lenses on the S. The mount register is longer because the mirror is bigger. The only ways around that are an EVIL system or an optical adapter.

[rosuna]

Why does mf have to be low volume? when nikon/canon work on it it will become a mass production item.

 

 

It is not so easy.

 

Look at this table:

 

A well corrected lens for 35mm format would resolve 30MP at f/8, and 60Mp at f/5.6. Those image size numbers (above 30MP, below 60MP) is more than the practical limit, considering professional output needs, for most of the profesional photographers. Until 30 to 40 MP many photographers could be interested in more image size, but there is not practical use for more, except for a few professionals and artists. Journalists, fashion, advertising photographers don't need an image size larger, considering the output they have to give to their clients for prints (magazines, journals, books) or online publication. Most primes from Canon or Nikon aren't crap lenses. I know a bit the L prime lenses of Canon, and they are second no none, including Leica R. I don't know if these lenses are diffraction limited at f/5.6, but it is very likely they are near to the optimum.

 

MF formats present many different complications. The DoF is narrower, the AF points cannot be far from the central part of the frame (because it is larger than 35mm, and you lose sensitivity and precision when you move away from the center), the shake and vibrations of the camera have more destructive effects on the picture taken, the viewfinder has to be quite large and expensive, and the same can be said of the mirror, so these cameras have to be slower, and larger... What do you get in exchange of all those limitations? A different aesthetic photograph and more detail (under ideal conditions). When the 35mm format reaches the practical limits for professional output, how many people will be interested in larger formats?

 

In the film days the situation was different. Larger formats were necessary for larger prints. Now image size alone set the limits.

 

The MF market will survive only if the MF brands look for ways of reducing the shortcomings of the current MF equipment (no the format itself), and of approaching prices. Current MF cameras of 22 to 31 MP will disappear, and backs and cameras of 40Mp or more have to reduce prices. It is likely the new Canon 1Ds series camera will offer more than 30MP for less than $8.000 (and a Canon 7D seems to be coming soon). Leica did a great work in product design with the S2, but the pricing isn't realistic. Maybe it is not a problem in the short term, but they have to rethink it for the long term. I assumed a price lower than 15.000€ for the body (say 12,995€, or 14,995€ in the worst case), and lower than 3,000€ for the standard prime lens (non CS 70mm).

 

Number of pixels of optimal size for different apertures of a diffraction limited lens,

wavelengths of the light and formats, considering 2 pixels per Airy disk diameter

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!

[lxlim]

Why does mf have to be low volume? when nikon/canon work on it it will become a mass production item....

 

Simon, what is the market for this large volume MF camera be?

 

I like this quote from Peter Drucker - There is nothing so useless as (Nikon or Canon) doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.

 

In contrast, the Olympus Pen and Panasonic GH1 seems to be flying off the shelves. Thats mass market. The most likely reason is because they are small something the S2, D3 series & 1D series are not. And of course they are cheap

[georg]

@rosuna

 

30 or 60MP with 24x36mm-sensors? What have we got from the last big jump (12MP-24MP)? Very few prime lenses get decent files at optimal aperture. Diffraction-limited lenses (also above 50% image height) from Canon/Nikon? The >>4k$-supertele-lenses propably. The 1,2/85mnII from Canon is nice, but of course has to be stopped down (>f2,8) to become usable with 20+MP-sensors.

 

Just try a tiny 20k$ P40+, the only current way to get an idea what a S2-sized modern CCD is capable of - you'll never look back to 35mm-IQ, nobody does! :-)

[Guest guy_mancuso]

@rosuna

 

30 or 60MP with 24x36mm-sensors? What have we got from the last big jump (12MP-24MP)? Very few prime lenses get decent files at optimal aperture. Diffraction-limited lenses (also above 50% image height) from Canon/Nikon? The >>4k$-supertele-lenses propably. The 1,2/85mnII from Canon is nice, but of course has to be stopped down (>f2,8) to become usable with 20+MP-sensors.

 

Just try a tiny 20k$ P40+, the only current way to get an idea what a S2-sized modern CCD is capable of - you'll never look back to 35mm-IQ, nobody does! :-)

 

Again check out this test i did with the P40+, P45+ and the P30+ . The P40+ is almost identical specs as the S2 . 7 percent bigger sensor size but still a 6 micron sensor. It is Dalsa but there really should be no IQ difference between the Kodak and Dalsa just really different profiles and look.

 

As you will see the sensor plus binning which is my guess going to be just like the s2. Won't know if it is a little better or equal to Phase solution here but I would imagine you will get the same respectable noise factors in or damn close to it.

 

But specially look at the P40+ image quality and that will be very comparable to the S2 . I used Phases top lenses in these test as well so that will help as well since we pretty much can count on the Leica glass to be equal or better.

 

There here. P40+, P45+ and my P30+ Oh My - The GetDPI Workshop Forums

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

It is not so easy.

 

Look at this table:

 

A well corrected lens for 35mm format would resolve 30MP at f/8, and 60Mp at f/5.6. Those image size numbers (above 30MP, below 60MP) is more than the practical limit, considering professional output needs, for most of the profesional photographers. Until 30 to 40 MP many photographers could be interested in more image size, but there is not practical use for more, except for a few professionals and artists. Journalists, fashion, advertising photographers don't need an image size larger, considering the output they have to give to their clients for prints (magazines, journals, books) or online publication. Most primes from Canon or Nikon aren't crap lenses. I know a bit the L prime lenses of Canon, and they are second no none, including Leica R. I don't know if these lenses are diffraction limited at f/5.6, but it is very likely they are near to the optimum.

 

MF formats present many different complications. The DoF is narrower, the AF points cannot be far from the central part of the frame (because it is larger than 35mm, and you lose sensitivity and precision when you move away from the center), the shake and vibrations of the camera have more destructive effects on the picture taken, the viewfinder has to be quite large and expensive, and the same can be said of the mirror, so these cameras have to be slower, and larger... What do you get in exchange of all those limitations? A different aesthetic photograph and more detail (under ideal conditions). When the 35mm format reaches the practical limits for professional output, how many people will be interested in larger formats?

 

In the film days the situation was different. Larger formats were necessary for larger prints. Now image size alone set the limits.

 

The MF market will survive only if the MF brands look for ways of reducing the shortcomings of the current MF equipment (no the format itself), and of approaching prices. Current MF cameras of 22 to 31 MP will disappear, and backs and cameras of 40Mp or more have to reduce prices. It is likely the new Canon 1Ds series camera will offer more than 30MP for less than $8.000 (and a Canon 7D seems to be coming soon). Leica did a great work in product design with the S2, but the pricing isn't realistic. Maybe it is not a problem in the short term, but they have to rethink it for the long term. I assumed a price lower than 15.000€ for the body (say 12,995€, or 14,995€ in the worst case), and lower than 3,000€ for the standard prime lens (non CS 70mm).

 

Number of pixels of optimal size for different apertures of a diffraction limited lens,

wavelengths of the light and formats, considering 2 pixels per Airy disk diameter

 

A digital camera system's diffraction limit is more related to its sensor's pixel size.

If you crunch the numbers, a 35mm camera will be diffraction limited at f/8 when it packs about 28MP, at f/5.6 when it packs 57MP.

 

Sony/Nikon are already at 24mp for 35mm FF and diffraction limited at f/10, this is a serious limitation to many kinds of photography because you'll never get optimum results at desired apertures.

 

The 50D being diffraction limited at f/7.7 could serve as a good example, you could adapt the sharpest Leica lens on it and the pictures will still look very soft for almost everything you will do so don't blame the mediocre lenses from Canon.

 

By enlarging the physical size of the sensor, for example, adopting the 30x45 size like the S2, the camera will hit its diffraction limit at about f/10 which will serve a lot better because one can step down further before hitting the limit and it could pack up to about 45mp before it's diffraction limited at f/8.

 

If you believe that engineering are about pushing boundaries, these are the boundaries.

 

More pixel is absolutely better because if you take 2 identical shots with the same angle of view, the high pixel camera will always contain more information and when it comes to printing the enlargement factor could be smaller if output sizes are similar.

 

More pixels are great for cropping too.

 

There are people (me included) believing in the special look a larger format delivers too.

 

Looking from a different perspective, a larger format doesn't mean wider angle, it actually means more information if you compare 2 identical shots with the same AOV, the advantage is clear and tangible, it was true with film, and it is true with digital. And it is less stressful to optics so what is not good.

 

Traditional medium format is notorious for its ergonomics, clunky ways of operation and costs, but it's largely due to the rather primitive ways of engineering and operation of traditional MF companies.

 

AF points for example, none of the traditional MF companies knows how to deal with it ... for Canon, Nikon et al, it is as easy (or difficult) as building a larger AF sensor with multiple points and a complex algorithm run by a high speed processor.

 

With a larger sensor estate, Nikon / Canon can also actually choose to quit the megapixel race by adopting a larger single pixel size and achieve benefits in noise performance and dynamic range etc.

 

The most difficult tasks for Leica, Hassy, Phase et al to tackle are actually the easiest parts for Nikon, and especially Canon, Sony.

 

Of course, it is only my guess so far ... please feel free to disagree.