Puts' S2 Article

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@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! :-)

 

You can get a refurbished P45+ back, camera body, and 75-150 zoom for $20,000. So The S2 will be under some pricing pressure. (The P45+ back is reported to be a good choice for mounting on a view camera because it doesn't have micro lenses.)

 

Capture Integration - Your Phase One, Canon, Apple, Eizo, Cambo Dealer

[Advertisement]

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

[dewittehd]

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.

 

mmmmmmm......substitute Canon/Nikon by Leica and read the post again......

Jean

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Yes that is true and the P40+ is actually even better setup for a tech camera since you don't need a wake up cable. Let me explain this. On the Kodak backs the P45+ and P25+ backs you have to wake up the back before you can shoot on a tech camera. So in essence you hit a cable button that wakes it up and you have 5 seconds to shoot the back. There are 1 shot cables that do both tasks for you from the Kapture group. Now the Dalsa sensor backs the P65+ and P40+ backs you do not need to wake the back up first to do this but there is a caveat here the Dalsa sensors can only do a 1 minute exposure and maybe 2 minutes now but the Kodak backs 45 and 25 can do a hour exposure. Actually the P45+ can do a hour the P25+ is 30 minutes safely and the P30+ can do 30 minutes safely but the P30+ has micro lenses so you can't use it on a tech camera. Why you say the need for 30 minutes or longer well stars for one and simple no light out in the dark . Two examples at 32 minutes with the P30+ on a Phase body though. LOL

 

Hopefully the S2 can do some long exposures it is a lot of fun to play with

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!

[sdai]

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

 

Anyone who can afford it and are happy to blow 10000 dollars on a camera ...

 

If Leica could sell 1000 S2s, I believe Nikon or Canon could sell at least 10 times (if not 100 times) more of a similar model.

 

35mm FF is soon to be found in the $2k ballpark, brand new 1Ds3 is about $6.5k, D3x is only slightly more around $7k. My wild guess is a S2 similar model from Nikon/Canon shouldn't cost more than $10-12k.

[rosuna]

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.

 

 

You get the same diffraction-limited resolution of 35mm format in a 36x48 format by stopping down one f/stop. So, if you need the same DoF, you have, roughly, the same diffraction-limited resolution. Lens designs are easier for smaller formats. This is the same arguments of APS-C versus 35mm format, I know, but APS-C is not the high end of the technology leaders. It isn't MF either.

 

Image size is not total real detail captured. You can increase detail by increasing image size, but you can also increase detail for a given image size.

 

The ouput size limits the image size you have to get.

 

I understand why many people prefer, want or need MF. That is not the basis of my reasoning. The point is in the big numbers. 30-40 MP is an easy target for 35mm at the current state of the technology (60MP is the diffraction-limited resolution of a lens at f/5.6), and I think will see it soon. Good 35mm lenses are up to the task. That image size (30-40MP) is more than 95% of the potential market need, can handle or is willing to pay for... I know this idea of a practical limit for image size was discussed years ago, but numbers mean something, and 30Mp relative to most output specifications aren't like 12Mp or 16MP. Output required by the clients, and photography's applications, didn't change so much. Maybe image size requirements are less important at this moment, and video images are replacing photographies in many cases. I know some people need 60Mp, and there are people that print 2 meters x 1,5 meters images... extreme image sizes and large formats are also interesting for artists, for amateur photographers looking for a particular aesthetic, etc. The MF will be for them, the remaining market. Fashion or advertising photographers needed MF when only the bigger formats provided 22MP or more. But that's gone.

 

Due to those reasons I think the main competitor of the S2 in the long term is the 35mm format, and the "pro" bodies of the big japaneses in that format. Leica's vision is correct, they are right. But the price isn't coherent with that vision. They can adjust when the new Canon "pro" body appears and the next round of the battle starts.

[haroldp]

The primary competitor's to the S2 and MF in the marketplace going forward, will most likely be the Canon 1DS series and the Nikon DnX series. I am an active user of Leica M8's and Nikon D3X, D700.

 

Do not discount the capability of Nikon's new lenses, the 14-24, and 24-70 are excellent and fully utilize the 24mp D3X sensor. Many of their primes are also excellent, particularly the 105mm f2, 200mm f2, 300 f2.8 etc.

 

Diffraction limits on these lenses are not reached until at least f11 for 24mp on a FF 35 sensor, and most of these are primarily used at f4-5.6 where they are both tack sharp across a 35mm frame and are not diffraction limited until much higher pixel densities are reached.

 

Let's not forget that an important use and benefit of higher pixel density is the reduced need for anti-aliasing. Nikon and Canon clearly view eliminating artifacts as more important than ultimate IQ which is why they employ AA filters, but Nikon has matched higher sensor resolution with less aggressive AA filters which is why the D3X IQ is easily and visibly a notch up from D3/D700 .

 

The D3X is already challenging the MF market with its FX offerings, and if the sensors are taken to the 30-50 mp range with perhaps no AA filter this challenge will be even greater, particularly when a choice of body profile is allowed (D3X, D700X etc.). Neither they nor Canon need a larger sensor and new lens mount to sustain this challenge.

 

I do not wish to incite yet another Nikon/Canon dispute. I talk about Nikon's because I use and know them, I am certain that Canon is roughly equivalent and equally competent.

 

Given Nikon/Canon's likely price points, full system (lenses, lights etc) avalability, Speed, Weather sealing, the S2 has a tough market hill to climb.

 

All of us in this forum are intensely interested in Leica surviving and prospering, but a business can only do that based on reality, not on niche fantasies.

 

The continuing appeal of the handling of RF format, and the optical and mechanical quality of Leica Lenses is real and sustainable.

 

The presumption that Nikon/Canon cannot produce acceptably high (to the market ) IQ both optically and electronically in a faster and more mechanically robust product is sheer fantasy, as is the theory that Hasselblad ( who have shown a much greater ability to adapt than Leica ) will not effectively respond to an existential challenge. Hasselblad / Phase are now in the 60+ mp range, and the Hasselblad 39 MS (multi shot) is a remarkably innovative attack on the beyer sensor limitations (albeit for static subjects).

 

Unlike the RF market, Leica has no overwhelming advantages in the large SLR space and is unlikey to find any once the enthusiastic pre-orderers are done.

 

I for one think Leica would have been far better off putting it's R & D resources into extending it's natural advantages in RF camera's and their superior handling qualities.

 

A full frame sensor RF camera that could fully utilize Leica's unique lenses. Leica's asph summiluxes are unmatched in their ability to be sharp corner to corner at f1.4 or 2.0. On a crop sensor this advantage is significantly reduced.

 

Faster continuous shooting speed, RF cameras have no finder blackout when following a subject this could be a huge advantage.

 

Sensor based image stabilization - combined with Leica's fast lenses and no finder blackout would be a huge advantage for available light photography.

 

Sensor based autofocus ( with focus points and indicators coordinated in the finder ) would make faster continuous speeds and lack of finder blackout even more useful. For events that do not need long lenses, like basketball or most reportage, this combo would be a real and discernable advantage.

 

And of course, one reason I used my M2 and then M6 right through the autofocus era ( along with F100's ) was that they were absolutely robust and reliable. Leica's digital RF cameras must match that reliability.

 

I am sorry for the length of this rant but I also want Leica to succeed.

 

These are my opinions and I could be wrong.

 

Regards to all .... Harold

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You get the same diffraction-limited resolution of 35mm format in a 36x48 format by stopping down one f/stop. So, if you need the same DoF, you have, roughly, the same diffraction-limited resolution.

 

Well theoretically, the sensor resolutions of a Sony A900 (or a Nikon D3x) and a Hassy H3D-50 are the same because their pixel pitches are almost identical (5.8 micron vs. 6 micron) but in practical use, there are night and day differences because of the enlargement factor in play.

 

If you fill the picture frame with your object, take 2 identical shots, one with the A900 and the other with the H3D-50, then you print the shots in "life size" - let pick a easy number for example 720mm, the A900 shot has to be enlarged 30 times while the Hassy shot only has to deal with 20 times enlargement.

 

In other words, if you print using native resolution at 300 dpi, with the 24x36 image from A900 you could do with 4000x6000 dots and only get 13.3x20 inches, but with the 36x48 image from H3D-50 you can do with 6000x8000 dots and in return get a 20"x26.7" print.

 

The advantage of a larger format in real life is quite obvious.

 

I agree with you that Leica has made a good choice in a sense although I don't like the fact that they chose to ditch 35mm in the mean time. But Nikon, Canon et al must have seen the advantages of a larger format too and they have to deal with the present and close limitation of 35mm FF, that's why I "guess" they'll all go for 30x45 or even 36x48 imminently.

 

Like our friends Guy and "georg" have said many times, if you've seen the MF images and dealt with their final prints, you'll never want to come back.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I hate to pound on the IQ part but and I know there are many that think a D3x is a short stone throw away from a MF back the real truth of the matter is it is not close but if I say that than I have 30 million people down my throat saying I hate 35mm which obviously is not true. And frankly i don't want to get into that whole deal. High end 35mm camera's are here to stay and they will get better and frankly there is more room for them than any MF system so they have a major share of the entire market and rightfully so. They do produce great images no question and I think Nikon maybe the top dog in that fight as pointed out they have a few very stellar lenses they recently released but at the end of the day when you take all of the parts to a image the MF will win the day and I actually maybe underestimating the S2 myself and if the lenses are what has been promised than I am. We obviously won't know that until we have it in hand and can process images and make reasonable comparisons to other comparable backs. I know we are fighting the price versus value issue and it is something I personally have to justify but right now we are speculating and until we get more data than we just have to hang on. I had a 40 minute conversation with a Leica executive today and I won't get into details but i did hang up feeling a little more comfortable. I'm a really hard sell so if I felt good than I think we maybe looking at a winner. We just have to wait for more data and images to get a better feeling of it.

[haroldp]

Guy... You are absolutely correct, but ...

 

I did not say or mean to imply that that a D3X level of camera is the equal of or even very close to the best of MF in IQ. It does not have to be.

 

What I have tried to say is that for many pro's ( and amateurs ), the threshold of 'good enough' (perhaps indistinguishable in the planned application) is the critical marketing level.

 

When a 6-10 mp crop format DSLR was clearly not good enough, and a 22-39 mp MF was, the choice was easy.

 

While a 24mp FX format DSLR may not be good enough for the most critical applications, it certainly is for many that the prior generation (D3/300) was not, and they are absolutely cannibalizing MF sales. The next generation ( 30-40mp, no AA filter, 16bit pipeline, smaller bodies etc. ) will do so even more. The spectacular price drop of Hasselblad is convincing evidence.

 

I do not even think that Nikon / Canon even care about the MF market since all of the MF sales are a rounding error in either companies financials. They are driven by competition with each other. And perhaps Sony one day.

 

Will the S2 have better IQ than a D3X .. almost certainly.

 

Will it be as good as a 56mm / 60mp MF back... probably not.

 

Is there enough market in the middle to sustain Leica .. I hope so but I doubt it.

 

I might even buy one, but it takes a large market to recoup R & D and tooling costs.

 

I believe Leica would have been far better off, and served it's user community better putting it's R & D resources into extending it's natural advantages in RF camera's.

 

Regards ... Harold

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Thanks Harold I should have maybe defined that like you said . Most will find the D3x good enough to get the job done and clients happy and in most cases it is exactly will do that. Lot's of things have changed recently or maybe better said in this economic stress. Some shooters have backed off the MF stuff sold it and went D3x for budget reasons and still be able to deliver to there clients. Let's face real facts for 6 months there it has been the worst economic disaster the modern photography has ever seen . At least the last 33 years i have been doing it, never seen anything like it period. There is nobody out there jumping for joy over their bank account.In those kinds of trials people will go in survival mode. Not buy anything , sell what they have and downgrade and other sorts of cost saving measures. The D3X by a long shot has saved a few folks for sure by downgrading their kits and still coming up with deliverable goods. I held on but it has not been easy. I enjoy a nice lifestyle with my wife and kids but certainly we jumped into cost savings mode. The good news is the phone is ringing and I am booking jobs again but still short than before this all hit. As I said once you hit MF it is hard to go back, just happy I was able to get by the tough spots.

 

I did have a conversation with Leica yesterday and I did have a better feeling about the S2 than before the call. I think in a couple weeks here when details and images start hitting the forums we will get a chance to really see what it can do. Obviously a lot of speculation right now with very few facts but hopefully soon we will have some real meat to talk about. Let's face it we have had more marketing than real data and for me personally I don't buy into the marketing very much. I like to see what is going on , so pretty soon I was told images will start coming up which we can download and play with.

 

BTW Harold you are one of the few that actually get's it. Refreshing

[AlanG]

Thanks Harold I should have maybe defined that like you said . Most will find the D3x good enough to get the job done and clients happy and in most cases it is exactly will do that. Lot's of things have changed recently or maybe better said in this economic stress.

 

This week a client asked me to re-size their images to 600 pixels wide. Apparently the 900 pixel wide samples I sent them were too big for their application. The designer received my full size tiff files and her response was "they're huge." She was going to charge them a lot to re-size them. These are architectural photos of high end buildings yet they end up being 600 pixel Flash slide shows and not much else. However, occasionally, one of those photos ends up on a really large display.

 

Today, a lot of my jobs are for web sites only. There are many times that clients have only used the small proofs that I post and have not even asked for full res files. So those few times when they need to blow up some of the shots, the 5DII images seem fine.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

FYI I am supposed to get the specs today from Leica from a e-mail telling me this and if they are not up already than I will post them so we can get a better idea what is under the hood. Looking forward to this myself , may tell a few stories we have not counted on.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

The specs are up now on a new thread. Enjoy

[haroldp]

Guy:

 

I have read many of your posts, and you are one of a cadre of contributors on this forum that consistently adds more light than heat, and useful info as well.

 

Regards ... Harold

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Honestly I only want to add value and the heat i do not want to deal with ever.

[mjh]

mmmmmmm......substitute Canon/Nikon by Leica and read the post again.....

Let’s see … I said that “Both vendors (Canon and Nikon) have highly sucessful 35 mm/APS-C DSLR systems.” That’s undeniably true. What about “Leica has a highly sucessful 35 mm/APS-C DSLR system.” Oops, Leica doesn’t even have a 35 mm (or APS-C) DSLR system, much less a successful one. And so on.