The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

S Is For Show Us Your S2 Shots

D&A

Well-known member
Hi Dave
I think it's all rather simple. s2, m9 and MF cameras use CCD. Everything else is CMOS.
It's not so much about Leica/ Pentax technical knowhow as the sensor They choose.
Looking at the DXO figures for the new Sony sensor (same in d7000, sony a580, k5) is enlightening to say the least ( look at the DR figures). I'm quite sure that this tech will be in the next round of FF sensors from Nikon and Sony. As for the RAW files, 3000 shots in with the Pentax have proved to me that they are very malleable, with the best shadow recovery I've seen in anything.
But this really is off topic!
Hi Jono,

You're right, I didn't touch on the implications of choice of sensor and its appropriateness for its selection in various bodies and also its implication in high ISO performance. I also agree, the dynamic range of these new crops of APS DSLR's are remarkable...one of the first things I noticed about the files in lighting situations photographed to test spcifically for DR. Pulling out detail in the shadows with remarkable ease with little destructive noise is notable! I may have been harsh on the noise reduction algorythms often employed, as that was standard on many past Pentax's and even some Nikon APS DSLR's not too long ago, especially in the mid priced range. Some of these files were, lets just kindly say, "not ready for prime time". I was recently asked to put the D7000 through its paces and also compare similary taken K5 files, so my in depth experience with these files is more limited compared to those cameras I intensly use.

I think though this all does have relevancy to the S2, in that some are trying to make informed decisions as to whether to stick with their current Nikon/Canon full frame high resolution DSLR cameras and system, anticipating what the next round of bodies/imporvement might bring to the table vis-a-vis moving onto the S2. I realize it depends on so many factors, like what one needs or expects and the potential use of the camera and its files.

Which sort of brings this entire topic back full circle to those who have the S2 and have been more than generous with their time in posting of images and providing vauable insights and feedback.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

doug

Well-known member
The guy is juggling chain saws?

I assume your landscape photos are from Slovakia - I love 'em, keep them coming.
 

JPlomley

Member
No way I can compete with those super models, but here's something from Olympic National Park when the vine maples were at their most iridescent.

This image was recorded on yet another rain soaked day (with the 35mm and a Heliopan Polarizer). Out of a 10 day trip, it rained 7 days. I had the S2 with 35/70/180 mm lenses and had no worries pulling this puppy out in those adverse conditions. In contrast, my Arca Swiss (4x5) only saw the light of day on three occasions the entire trip. Needless to say, the S2 saved the journey.
 

ceh

Active member
No way I can compete with those super models, but here's something from Olympic National Park when the vine maples were at their most iridescent.

This image was recorded on yet another rain soaked day (with the 35mm and a Heliopan Polarizer). Out of a 10 day trip, it rained 7 days. I had the S2 with 35/70/180 mm lenses and had no worries pulling this puppy out in those adverse conditions. In contrast, my Arca Swiss (4x5) only saw the light of day on three occasions the entire trip. Needless to say, the S2 saved the journey.
..very nice - beautiful lights.
 

ceh

Active member
The guy is juggling chain saws?

I assume your landscape photos are from Slovakia - I love 'em, keep them coming.
..yes juggles with motor saws - it handles well, with three - kickstarted
Image of the country is West Tatras - Rohace, first snow.
 

peterv

New member
..yes juggles with motor saws - it handles well, with three - kickstarted
Image of the country is West Tatras - Rohace, first snow.
CEH, these chainsaw images will give me nightmares for weeks :bugeyes: BTW I like the slow shutter in the B/W. Adds extra drama to the scene...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
A couple of personal and practical observations for those agonizing ... :):

IMO, none of these cameras including the S2 replaces a rangefinder IF the way you shoot is predicated on the rangefinder way of working and seeing. Smallness is a virtue for stealth, but not necessarily an over-riding one depending one's technique with the larger cameras ... however, carrying a small camera is an obvious advantage ... the best camera being the one you tend to have with you ;) IMHO however, the REAL difference is in the seeing ... rangefinders promote, even force, a focus on content over what the image will actually look like. We see no (distracting) distortion or compression of image characteristics ... which some people despise, and others prize.

Being somewhat familiar with Jono's photographs, I seriously doubt I'd recommend sacrificing his M9 kit for a S2. Nor would I have done so.

For those contemplating the S2 as a DSLR replacement, the discrimination isn't quite as clear cut (except the ISO issue which I'll offer an opinion on next). IMO, worrying about what Canon, Nikon, or now even Sony may do with 35mm DSLRs in future regarding meg count is a bit futile. Even if the DSLRs jumped meg count to match the S2 (quite possible), the sensor size will never jump ... if it does, then it isn't a 35mm DSLR anymore and all your lenses will be obsolete (i.e., R9 jump to S2). Plus, all these DSLRs are CMOS sensors, and all the MFD's are CCDs (as are the M9 and the discontinued DMR, both highly prized for their IQ).

So, IMO, it isn't just meg count, it is pixel quality. I personally do not favor the pixel quality of any CMOS DSLR current or past, and I've owned most of them. Which is why the M9, S2, and Hasselblad H4D/60 are my ideal set-up ... they are all CCD capture of varying sizes, meg count, versatility, and application. If Leica had made a weather sealed R10 with a 18-24 meg CCD sensor and some new AF lenses, that is what I'd be shooting with over the Sony I now use, or by default the S2 which may replace the Sony (TBD).

One other issue of discrimination to consider is that of hand-hold ability and DOF ... both of which are less with the S2 compared to any 35mm DSLR, crop frame or FF. People that tend to over-look this are in for a shock if they do not have experience with MFD use. Those that employ technique as if the S2 was a D3X are in for a lot of unusable images :eek:

ISO is a whole other kettle of fish. It's a very personal shooting need. I scanned exif info of about 10,000 images from my Canon, Nikon, and Sony DSLR files and discovered the incidence of using anything over ISO 1000 was pretty rare ... (so was use of anything under 320). 320 to 800 was the vast majority of work. So, personally sacrificing pixel quality of a vast majority for a few high ISO shots didn't make any sense. In addition, improvements in firmware, and software noise control has made this even less of a concern.

Unless I am missing a custom function or operating selection on the S2, I still believe a major error is the lack of intermediate ISO steps. I said this a year ago, and I say it again ... Major Error! Jumping from 320 to 640 to 1250 is a crime. No 400, 500, 800, 1000 to refine the ISO selection for needed light sensitivity with a minimum increase of noise. I hope someone corrects me on this, because I'd be delighted to be wrong.

Hope this helps a bit,

-Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
Which sort of brings this entire topic back full circle to those who have the S2 and have been more than generous with their time in posting of images and providing vauable insights and feedback.

Dave (D&A)
Hi Dave
Absolutely - and I hope the discussion was useful to more than just me.

Great shots ceh; I particularly like the first of the chain-saw-juggler - excellent (and rather the way I feel right now).

A couple of personal and practical observations for those agonizing ... :):

Being somewhat familiar with Jono's photographs, I seriously doubt I'd recommend sacrificing his M9 kit for a S2. Nor would I have done so.
HI There Marc
To be honest, the idea of selling my M9 kit for an S2 only stayed for a moment, but your decision and reasoning made me realise that I also (thanks to my father) could buy an S2 - it would have been to replace my Sony kit rather than the rangefinder, and on a family negotiation basis would have been a quid pro quo for the horse box :ROTFL::deadhorse::eek::) (my dear wife is very understanding).

This consideration has at least given me scope to make the decision uncoloured by financial considerations (beyond the fact that it's expensive, and shouldn't be gone into lightly). So I'm still considering :)

I think your reasoning is very sound; except that I'm not quite as convinced as you are in the superiority of the CCD - I suspect that it's more to do with the AA filter (or lack of it) - I'm not aware that anyone has yet produced a CMOS sensor without an AA filter?
 

GMB

Active member
Hi Kurt
I've been really struggling with this . . . . I actually could just walk into the leica store and grab the camera (assuming it's in stock).

I'm in the position where I've cleared all the financial hurdles (even my wife smiles indulgently), so I just have to decide whether it's worth it to me . . . . . . . It's causing me serious mental anguish!
I have the same luxury problem ever since I tried the S2 for a weekend in June. Luckily, my paying (non-photo) job has kept me so busy that I did not have much time to worry--but now it is Christmas and you guys post all these great S2 shots... Decisions, decisions, decisions.

BTW, thanks to everyone for an interesting discussion.

As to selling the M gear to buy the S2, no way. Sell a couple of lenses, may be. But the two systems are so different, and while the ergonomics of the S2 may be good for a MFD, they are not comparable to the M9. Very different horses indeed.
 

ceh

Active member
A couple of personal and practical observations for those agonizing ... :):

IMO, none of these cameras including the S2 replaces a rangefinder IF the way you shoot is predicated on the rangefinder way of working and seeing. Smallness is a virtue for stealth, but not necessarily an over-riding one depending one's technique with the larger cameras ... however, carrying a small camera is an obvious advantage ... the best camera being the one you tend to have with you ;) IMHO however, the REAL difference is in the seeing ... rangefinders promote, even force, a focus on content over what the image will actually look like. We see no (distracting) distortion or compression of image characteristics ... which some people despise, and others prize.

-Marc
..absolutely agree :)
 

JPlomley

Member
.very nice - beautiful lights.
Cheers CEH. I just realized this morning that when you click on the image it displays on a black background, but it is not at the full pixel dimension. Its only when you click on it again that you see the full sized image. As well, I think I could have sharpened it up a bit more. I down-sampled this puppy from the final print dimensions at 240 ppi.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Hi Everyone,

Some comments regarding the last few postings:

1. CEH, Great shot of the "chain saw" juggling individual. I much prefer this in B&W and as someone else pointed out and the apparent slow sync was just about right. Next thing you know he'll try juggling three S2 bodies! :eek:

2. Jono, I'm with you in that its a good time for some deliberation regarding the S2. It's purchase (at least for my intended uses) is not as clear cut as some other cameras were. I'm not sure in my case if its time to jump in or take a more cautious wait & see approach. I keep thinking of the expression, "jump right in, the waters warm" which then leads to my repeating to myself.... "I must be rational, I must be rational....etc" :)

As for CCD vs. CMOS, I still believe CCD image wise, holds a distinct advantage with regards to image characteristics except for higher ISO performance and am not convinced it's time yet for those cameras (as noted by Marc) to give up those advantages, even though it can be argued that the gap between CCD & CMOS is getting smaller as time goes on.

3. Marc, many excellent observations. As I noted above, I still at this stage prefer CCD even though it means I might be sacrificing higher ISO performance. That's also why I think I mentioned (or implied) that even though DSLR's might get more pixels in the near future, its not the same as an S2 (or any DMF for that matter). I've long been of the school (and apparently so have you) that pixel quality is paramount and more important than absolute #'s. This important attribute goes way back..heck its even why in earlier times the low pixel count D2Hs could often run rings around some higher end DLSR's with close to double the number of pixels when comparing a lot of important image characteristics, especially when both were used near base ISO.

I completely agree with you that the S2 is no substitute for the rangefinder and the thought of having to give that up (at least temporarily) is a difficult pill to swallow. The only reason I (and I suspect possibly some others) contemplate having to possibly give up that system and lenses for now, is simply an economic one. The system in my case that will be given up completely for an S2, work wise, would be the DSLR. Unlike your high ISO use assessment, I would conservatively say at least 65% or more of my DSLR images were shot at ISO's 1200 or higher due to the cameras use in low light performing art and concert situations. It's not only low light but often times performers moving fairly rapidly on stage. I'm up against both speed (needing bursts on occasions) as well as higher ISO and this is where I'm not sure a deliberate change in shooting style and techniques would allow the S2 to be completely successful for these endeavors. I tried emulating shooting a portion of the last few concerts by setting the DSLR's to emulate upper limits of ISO and FPS of the S 2, to see how it goes and then deal with the files in post processing. As you noted limited depth of field with DMF is also a consideration, having experienced it myself when shooting DMF with the Hassy system (under completely different shooting enviorments). It most definitely will be a slow climb for those concert shoots, trying exploit the strengths of the S2 system (while minimizing any weaknesses). I think though the tradeoffs (by using the S2), if successful, will be well worth it.

Lastly Marc, regarding big 1 stop "ISO Steps" in the S2, didn't we go through that with the M8? If the S2 isn't capable of making relatively small ISO "step" changes, then that I feel it is a small but important omission and can't for the life of me see why it was overlooked (especially after the M8 and its correction in the M9). It may be subtle, but in some shooting situations the smaller increase in high ISO setting, is just enough to put it over the edge for a successful shot and dealing with the subsequent image. Yes, exposure comp is one way around this but that's not the most straight forward solution. If it was omitted, then possibly a firmware update to correct/change may be possible?

My guess is there are many more sitting just outside the boundaries of picking up an S2 and reasons for possibly hesitating (or contemplating) may well depend on the relative strengths and capabilities of the S2 system for their particular needs and shooting styles. The continuing feedback here has certainly been most valuable, even if the ultimate decision to change over is delayed with some additional consideration needed. Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
I completely agree with you that the S2 is no substitute for the rangefinder and the thought of having to give that up (at least temporarily) is a difficult pill to swallow. The only reason I (and I suspect possibly some others) contemplate having to possibly give up that system and lenses for now, is simply an economic one.

It is certainly a high price to pay ... I would have preferred to have kept my M9 kit.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi Dave
Absolutely - and I hope the discussion was useful to more than just me.

Great shots ceh; I particularly like the first of the chain-saw-juggler - excellent (and rather the way I feel right now).



HI There Marc
To be honest, the idea of selling my M9 kit for an S2 only stayed for a moment, but your decision and reasoning made me realise that I also (thanks to my father) could buy an S2 - it would have been to replace my Sony kit rather than the rangefinder, and on a family negotiation basis would have been a quid pro quo for the horse box :ROTFL::deadhorse::eek::) (my dear wife is very understanding).

This consideration has at least given me scope to make the decision uncoloured by financial considerations (beyond the fact that it's expensive, and shouldn't be gone into lightly). So I'm still considering :)

I think your reasoning is very sound; except that I'm not quite as convinced as you are in the superiority of the CCD - I suspect that it's more to do with the AA filter (or lack of it) - I'm not aware that anyone has yet produced a CMOS sensor without an AA filter?
Not that I know of either Jono. Maybe for a reason huh?

-Marc
 

David K

Workshop Member
Just finished re-reading the Digilloyd review of this system and it seems like Lloyd had some consistent back focusing issues. Wondering if any one who's currently using the system has experienced this problem.

Also, for those that don't follow this system closely there's a pretty hefty price increase in some of the lenses come the New Year. Some dealers, e.g. Adorama, B&H, etc. have already implemented the increase. Something to consider if a few thousand dollars makes a difference.
 

ceh

Active member
Cheers CEH. I just realized this morning that when you click on the image it displays on a black background, but it is not at the full pixel dimension. Its only when you click on it again that you see the full sized image. As well, I think I could have sharpened it up a bit more. I down-sampled this puppy from the final print dimensions at 240 ppi.
Yes I saw that picture in full size:)
................................................
 

D&A

Well-known member
It is certainly a high price to pay ... I would have preferred to have kept my M9 kit.
I can fully empathize with you Kurt and in your case, you most certainly used the M9 in a very effective way.

Jono & Marc good point! I too cannot think of a CMOS camera without a AA filter and that most certainly is one of the contributing factors for the perceived image superiority of CCD over CMOS.

Dave (D&A)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Not that I know of either Jono. Maybe for a reason huh?

-Marc
Jono & Marc good point! I too cannot think of a CMOS camera without a AA filter and that most certainly is one of the contributing factors for the perceived image superiority of CCD over CMOS.

Dave (D&A)
Maybe it can't be done? I'm not very well up on the technical possibilities of these things. Or maybe it's just that most of these sensors are made my Kodak, and I don't think they do CMOS?

all the best
 
Top