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!
The Leica S2 System and Image Quality
- Thread starter carstenw
- Start date
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
To me this is one big downfall is the 3:2 aspect ratio. I have really grown to love 4:3 . I very very very rarely ever crop a image. I think Leica did this to maintain height on the camera . It would have changed the mirror box for sure which would make it taller for sure. Another thing to consider when comparing against 645 system is they are not as wide as the S2 but taller. More boxy if you will. Pick your poison here but I would have preferred the 4:3 ratio on the S2
Giorgio
Member
Which leads to an interesting question. Would a larger (different aspect ratio) sized sensor fit into the S2 camera, and would existing lenses accommodate one?
Except they've now designed the flange-focal and mirror in the body for the existing (shorter) sensor height, so they're stuck with that limitation. Had they gone 4:3 for the same Image Circle to begin with, the body would have been a little thicker to accommodate the taller mirror required for the taller (but narrower) sensor, and the lens flange focal would be longer than it is now to clear that taller mirror when it flips up. Unfortunately, while it's really easy to mount a lens with a longer flange focal to a camera with a shorter one via a simple tube adapter, it is impossible to do it the other way around and maintain infinity focus. The ONLY solution for that direction is an optical adapter which has to increase the effective focal by some percentage.
IMO this is one design area on the S2 where Leica screwed themselves bigtime...
(And yes, I KNOW the Leica fan club will chime in that they actually prefer 3:2 over 4:3, so it's no issue for them
)
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Interesting Carsten than what is the design market on this cam . Wedding , Fashion and whatever . Question what is the most popular print size in almost any market especially wedding 8X10, 16x20. They are the lifeblood of the wedding market and actually the gold standard size since I started 34 years ago is 8 x 10. Almost every paper you can buy is 8x10 than what 16x20 and 11 x14 never really made the grade assumption on that one but the industry standard since the beginning of time was 8x10. What is the best format for 8x10 4:3. So who are they really targeting here one has to wonder . 3:2 fits no standard in the industry even though it has been around a long time it never fit the standard paper size. I find that part quite interesting, as much as we may not want to admit it this industry is formed and driven by wedding shooters and portrait shooter to a very large extent. Did you ever ask for a 7 x10 print or whatever that size is. How we actually got to 3:2 is quite amazing when the industry set all paper standards at 8x10
Obviously a whole thread can be written by this alone and it is quite interesting how some things never changed even though a tremendous amount of pressure from the 35mm format
Obviously a whole thread can be written by this alone and it is quite interesting how some things never changed even though a tremendous amount of pressure from the 35mm format
carstenw
Active member
16x20 and 8x10 are North American sizes. The European sizes and ratios are different (narrower) and I don't know what is going on in Asia. I don't know where the S2 target market is either Anyway 5:4 would be better for those paper sizes than 4:3. Maybe someone should even make a 6x7" sensor
Anyway, if Leica's gamble is to catch 1Ds3 and D3x users who want to step up, then 3:2 is probably more appealing to those photographers, regardless of paper sizes.
Anyway 5:4 would be better for those paper sizes than 4:3. Maybe someone should even make a 6x7" sensor Anyway, if Leica's gamble is to catch 1Ds3 and D3x users who want to step up, then 3:2 is probably more appealing to those photographers, regardless of paper sizes.
It's a 10" X 7.5"
As far as wedding albums are concerned, ratio is no longer the driving aspect. All shapes and crops are used in bound albums, and the traditional ones acknowledged the 35mm film ratio long ago with mats for 7X10 image area.
What still lags are the mat and frame choices available ... drives me nuts when clients order 8X10s from a 35mm image.
-Marc
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I agree and maybe more there thinking. Honestly who knows and to be honest beaten to death. Just want to test the damn thing and get on with it if you know what i mean. LOL16x20 and 8x10 are North American sizes. The European sizes and ratios are different (narrower) and I don't know what is going on in Asia. I don't know where the S2 target market is either
Anyway, if Leica's gamble is to catch 1Ds3 and D3x users who want to step up, then 3:2 is probably more appealing to those photographers, regardless of paper sizes.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I know and shooting for 8x10 with 35mm is a royal PITA.
Oh well time for me to go make some money, damn 12 year old eats like a adult now. LOL Check in later
In our lab, we turn out quite a lot of 4x6, 8x12, 12x18, 14x20, and 20x30 prints, which are all 2:3. Wedding deliverables have changed over the years and most presentation is now in coffee table-style albums. These range from square 10x10s (which have 10x20 2-page spreads) to 10x20s (folding out to a whopping 10x40). Long is in with clients who are used to their 16:9 LCD TVs and 16:10 computer monitors.
Magazine print work is still 8.5x11 for the most part, but 2-page spreads are 11x17 across (almost perfect 2:3). For 8.5x11, you could crop the heck out of just about any camera today and it would still look fine. Billboards are also very long and narrow, as are bus and subway ads.
There have always been different formats with different ratios (4x5, 6x17, 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5, 24x36mm) with film. I don't think anything has changed. Every photographer has his or her way of seeing the world. Different aspect ratios for different tastes.
David
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
In Europe the UK is the only place that still clings to the 4:5 ratio for printing. Even there it's dying rapidly. Leica being a european manufacturer, (heck the 3:2 ratio was invented by Leica was it not?) I'd assume that they would not be as tied mentally to the 4:5 standard of the US market. Americans do seem to think that just because they use a standard that everyone else does or will have to conform. Big market yes, I'd say though that for Leica the US is just one and probably not the biggest market by any means. What is the standard in Japan I wonder?
As far as the wedding market is concerned in the UK, 8X10" is dying rapidly, Graphistudio who are by far the most popular storybook album manufacturer use either square or 8X12"(2:3), 10X14" (5:7), A3 (4:3), etc. The biggest 'traditional' album manufacturer, Spicer Hallfield, has gone out of business, the remaining option for traditional albums is Mario Acerboni and only a fraction of their albums are still in the 4:5 ratio. The options are square, 2:3 or 4:3. 8X10" is still popular as a print size, I still shoot leaving room for it, I have the lines marked on my viewfinder with pencil. I won't miss it when it goes however. I never liked the ratio much prefering 7:5 over 2:3 or 4:5.
As far as the wedding market is concerned in the UK, 8X10" is dying rapidly, Graphistudio who are by far the most popular storybook album manufacturer use either square or 8X12"(2:3), 10X14" (5:7), A3 (4:3), etc. The biggest 'traditional' album manufacturer, Spicer Hallfield, has gone out of business, the remaining option for traditional albums is Mario Acerboni and only a fraction of their albums are still in the 4:5 ratio. The options are square, 2:3 or 4:3. 8X10" is still popular as a print size, I still shoot leaving room for it, I have the lines marked on my viewfinder with pencil. I won't miss it when it goes however. I never liked the ratio much prefering 7:5 over 2:3 or 4:5.
Interesting. I almost always crop my 35's to 4:3 and almost always cropped my 4x5's to 4:3. Vertical 3:2 looks skinny, horizontal or vertical 5:4 both look chubby to me... If I make a pano it is usually 5:2 or 3:1 as I find those more visually appealing than 16:9. 3:2 is okay for some horizontals, but to me generally seems either too wide or not wide enough, rarely just right. OTOH, 4:3 seems to work for anything. Oh, and I *really* like 1:1 too!
As I said, Jack, everyone has their own preferences. The great thing is that in the digital age, we can print any size we want and present electronically in any aspect ratio we choose. No longer are we bound by the constraints of "standard" print sizes, slide mounts, etc. Even for large gallery prints, mats and frames are routinely cut to size.
I like 2:3. It's what I'm used to. And, I like my skinny verticals, thank you very much.
David
I am rather fond of it as well! :salute:
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
Nah, you can't beat a 1:2!
David,As I said, Jack, everyone has their own preferences. The great thing is that in the digital age, we can print any size we want and present electronically in any aspect ratio we choose. No longer are we bound by the constraints of "standard" print sizes, slide mounts, etc. Even for large gallery prints, mats and frames are routinely cut to size.
I like 2:3. It's what I'm used to. And, I like my skinny verticals, thank you very much.
David
I totally agree it's up to the artist! Moreover, I would be all for a camera with a ROUND sensor that matched the lens IC so I could crop after the fact to any aspect ratio I wanted. Of course this design would be supported by an electronic VF that allowed me to set the desired framing at capture, which would also eliminate the mirror clearance issue
tashley
Subscriber Member
I've shot it tethered, and it worked just fine. I then tried to compare it to the P45+ by shooting that tethered immediately afterwards and I got DB problem error messages so often that I had to un-tether, restart the software and the back almost for every shot until I gave up!
That it not my usual experience of the Phase tether but I have certainly had it happen a few times.
Christopher
Active member
Well I think most people will prefer 3:4 once they shot with it for some time. Before getting to MF I quite liked 2:3 and thought that it is great, after shooting MF for a over a year now I checked my LR catalogue and nearly 80% of my Canon and Leica files are now closer to 3:4 than 2:3. That kinda shocked me. I think 2:3 is quite ugly most of the time, it is just not narrow enough or to narrow. I love anything from 1:2 and wider, but can't stand 2:3 anymore.
I'm pretty sure that most people would prefer 3:4 of they used it for some time along with 2:3.
I'm pretty sure that most people would prefer 3:4 of they used it for some time along with 2:3.