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!

Leica S2 Studio Shoot - Nov 20th

dfarkas

Workshop Member
david,
thanks for clarifying. actually, i do not feel strongly ybout gear, i feel strongly about images.
anyway, i am totally with you on landscape shooting, there MP are needed and they are never enough. as far as comparisms go, i prefer to see them from other peope than from a leica dealer, just for fairness' sake.
peter
Peter,

I only supplied the S2 and the studio, not the analysis.

Each individual MFDB owner shot their own focus sequence and I shot the S2. All the cameras were placed in the same position on a tripod with the same focal length (except for the Sinar which had a 110, instead of a 70/80). The lights were reset for each camera so that base ISO on every camera could be used at the same aperture (f/11). As David K said, everyone thought this would be the most fair test.

We then brought the images into the computer, picked the best focused image from each and attempted to make each camera result look as good as possible (as this is what photographers would need to do in everyday workflow). The Sinar file required the most work, followed by P65+, then H3DII-39. The S2 file required the least amount of PP to get a pleasing result. Others who were there (like David K) can confirm this.

As far as judging the results, we brought up each file pair at 100% and everyone made their own judgments and comments.

In the next few days, I'll get the results uploaded for review. This is actually the first time I've had a chance to get online in several days. Been busy with test shoots, setting up and running our S2 studio event, and holding our Leica demo day at the store today. Tomorrow, I get on a plane to meet with some clients. Just a bit busy right now. Promise to get some updates online soon.

David
 

David K

Workshop Member
David, thanks for the clarification on the Hasselblad model, I stand corrected.

Carsten, I'll let David F address the processing of the Hasselblad file and, when he gets time perhaps he can post a crop from each of the test shots.
 

markowich

New member
clearly everyone has its own requirements on a (new) camera system. mine is whether i can leave my D3x + nikon lenses at home when i go on a trip, taking in cityscapes, landscapes, some street shooting etc. this requires a well working autofocus and good IQ up to 800 iso. at this point i have not seen anything convincing me that the S2 is good for that. but i am still number 1 on my dealer's list---)))
peter

www.pbase.com/markowich
 

dfarkas

Workshop Member
David K wrote, "can't recall how the Hassy files were processed. Hopefully, David from Dale Labs will fill in the blanks here. Anyway, after a half-dozen pair of eyes inspected the images ad nauseum, there was no clear winner. The consensus was that the images from the Hasselblad were a notch below the remaining three."



My goodness. You are comparing different systems and you take the time to understand how the Leica, Phase and Sinar files were processed but you don't take the time to find out how the Hasselblad files were processed?? But then you make a conclusion on those same files!?! I just don't understand this at all.
The Hasselblad files were processed in LR b3, using the Hasselblad profile (not the Adobe one).

David
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Why did you not use Phocus? Free to download and use.

So far I haven't seen any results from using LR2/3 or ACR which do the files justice.

David
This is a perfect example of why it's becoming more and more difficult to "test" cameras and backs and do a credible job, and this is just in one area. Software choice does make a difference in the final file, yet few people are facile enough with every software to generate optimal results with all of them.

I think there is some value in processing all files with the same software, but the methods and software used should be clearly stated at the beginning, and folks should implicitly understand the results may not be optimal for all the camera systems tested. Of course the next issue is relying on the person doing the processing to generate the ideal results for that file -- again difficult to assess unless you know them and their processing personally. Ideally we'd have each system's file optimally processed with the best software for it, all by some "expert" who's credibility is beyond question. Unfortunately that person does not exist. Fortunately for you, Guy and I are close. (KIDDING! KIDDING!!! :ROTFL:).

So in the end, I think the best we can hope for aside from demoing each camera ourselves, is to garner results from multiple sources like these and convolve them (hah!) into a data set for ourselves --- and this is precisely where and how a forum environment like this one can benefit all participants.

It should not need to be stated at the front of every test that if you are going to buy a very expensive system, you should fully demo that system BEFORE buying. I think we can assume every reader here will make sure a given system delivers results they are satisfied with before they buy. Even if they don't, at the end of the day it's their choice and their money, and that's all that matters.

So once again, my personal thanks to everybody who shares their results here even amid the occasional criticisms that get slung their way.

Cheers,
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Why did you not use Phocus? Free to download and use. So far I haven't seen any results from using LR2/3 or ACR which do the files justice.
Does seem more advisable to use each mnfr. native raw processor.

Phase P65 (don't know if it was + or not) mounted on the Phase 645 DF
There is only a P65+ (and there is only a P40+). These two backs came out after the plus series started, so there is no non-plus version. (intended as a friendly note - I know it's hard to keep track of all of the manufacturer's various naming schemes even for me - and it's my job!)



From personal experience I can say running such tests is both mentally exhausting, extremely hard logistically, and not nearly as simple as it seems technically. If you don't agree with the methodology of his test that's your right, but please inject into your postings a consideration for the time and effort it took to produce this test.

That said, I agree that Hassy's files should be processed in Hassy's software for a more meaningful comparison. David and David: if when you have a chance you could either post a raw file, or run the raw through Phocus I know the forum would appreciate it.

This is not the test I would have run, but I acknowledge and appreciate the hard work you took in producing it.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
 

Greg Seitz

New member
This is a perfect example of why it's becoming more and more difficult to "test" cameras and backs and do a credible job, and this is just in one area. Software choice does make a difference in the final file, yet few people are facile enough with every software to generate optimal results with all of them.

I think there is some value in processing all files with the same software, but the methods and software used should be clearly stated at the beginning, and folks should implicitly understand the results may not be optimal for all the camera systems tested. Of course the next issue is relying on the person doing the processing to generate the ideal results for that file -- again difficult to assess unless you know them and their processing personally. Ideally we'd have each system's file optimally processed with the best software for it, all by some "expert" who's credibility is beyond question. Unfortunately that person does not exist. Fortunately for you, Guy and I are close. (KIDDING! KIDDING!!! :ROTFL:).

So in the end, I think the best we can hope for aside from demoing each camera ourselves, is to garner results from multiple sources like these and convolve them (hah!) into a data set for ourselves --- and this is precisely where and how a forum environment like this one can benefit all participants.

It should not need to be stated at the front of every test that if you are going to buy a very expensive system, you should fully demo that system BEFORE buying. I think we can assume every reader here will make sure a given system delivers results they are satisfied with before they buy. Even if they don't, at the end of the day it's their choice and their money, and that's all that matters.

So once again, my personal thanks to everybody who shares their results here even amid the occasional criticisms that get slung their way.

Cheers,
Actually, I think the solution is simple, just offer up the RAW files and let people draw their own conclusions. I know Guy generally does and it's far more useful than simply seeing processed jpgs. There are plenty of free hosting sites such as MediaFire that can be used.
 

carstenw

Active member
I don't think that David is responsible for the Hasselblad results. He brought the Sinar, and each photographer operated their own camera. He also doesn't need to make any excuses for finding the Hasselblad shots less appealing. If they were less appealing to him, then it is correct that he reported this.

I question the development though. I am not under the impression that the Hasselblad shots should be any less good than the others. Since it sounds like everyone sat down together and developed the shots, perhaps the Hasselblad owner was simply less experienced. I also think that the shots might have been better developed in Phocus, but that is conjecture on my part.
 

markowich

New member
i have very high expectations in the H4D. the HC lenses beat their mamiya counterparts and they have a central shutter (good for who needs it). it is my feeling that those who want to decide on their future MF system should wait until the H4D is out to compare. most likely the new hassy AF system will beat everything in the MF market.
after all, we are talking many thousands of $$$...unwise to make a rash decision. peter
 

Christopher

Active member
i have very high expectations in the H4D. the HC lenses beat their mamiya counterparts and they have a central shutter (good for who needs it). it is my feeling that those who want to decide on their future MF system should wait until the H4D is out to compare. most likely the new hassy AF system will beat everything in the MF market.
after all, we are talking many thousands of $$$...unwise to make a rash decision. peter

That brings up great memories, I think I heard that quite often when the H3D came out ^^
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
i have very high expectations in the H4D. the HC lenses beat their mamiya counterparts and they have a central shutter (good for who needs it). it is my feeling that those who want to decide on their future MF system should wait until the H4D is out to compare. most likely the new hassy AF system will beat everything in the MF market.
after all, we are talking many thousands of $$$...unwise to make a rash decision. peter

Respectfully I am requesting your source for the results showing HC lenses beating the Mamiya counterparts.


Thank you,
Steve Hendrix
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Actually, I think the solution is simple, just offer up the RAW files and let people draw their own conclusions. I know Guy generally does and it's far more useful than simply seeing processed jpgs. There are plenty of free hosting sites such as MediaFire that can be used.
Hi guys just got back into town from Sedona with extremely limited internet and NO phone at all. I stayed at a really really nice time share resort and got up at 5 am to actually shoot the interiors, fingers crossed i got something good for my book. Anyway trying to catch up but regardless when we do get to the tests no doubt all the relevant raws will be available to everyone and obviously our processing and converters used will be posted as well so not only will you get to see them in the thread very detailed but get a chance to process them yourselves to evaluate under your processing techniques. Obviously best of both worlds but hell you trying to beat Jack and I at processing is going to be tough. LOL

You know I am just joking. LAUGH
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Respect to all ...

This is hilarious ... a company selling Phase and now Leica sets up a test including the competition then allows judgement of the competition that was processed in a beta version of LR rather than Phocus ... ????????.

Some folks are beyond gullible. Did no one question this?

I spent the morning today shooting the S2, 70mm and 180mm ... in the real world, not a studio.

Many thanks to Chris Snipes and Dales Labs.

160 shots in different types of light down here in Florida while on R&R at the fab Don Cesar resort.

Won't post results until I get on my main computer and give it a fair shake.

Have clear impressions on comparative performance and handling. Some excellent, some not.

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
That brings up great memories, I think I heard that quite often when the H3D came out ^^
And it delivered exactly that ... since I had the then latest most current Mamiya, and Contax 645 to make direct comparisons ... did you?

Speak from direct experience please, not forum puffery.
 

Christopher

Active member
Well I don't really care that much about AF, because I don't need it but I know from experience that a H3D would be my last choice that camera feels just cheap and wrong. Than some people are different and prefer it that way.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Hi guys just got back into town from Sedona with extremely limited internet and NO phone at all. I stayed at a really really nice time share resort and got up at 5 am to actually shoot the interiors, fingers crossed i got something good for my book. Anyway trying to catch up but regardless when we do get to the tests no doubt all the relevant raws will be available to everyone and obviously our processing and converters used will be posted as well so not only will you get to see them in the thread very detailed but get a chance to process them yourselves to evaluate under your processing techniques. Obviously best of both worlds but hell you trying to beat Jack and I at processing is going to be tough. LOL

You know I am just joking. LAUGH
Oh dear,
Processing chest thumping LOL
No disrespect, but processing is one of those parts of digital photography where I feel there is little absolute measure of "best". It is just one of the links that start with subject and end in final image. More and more I have moved away from a processing "routine" to one that is best for the particular image. One would hardly ever process a high-contrast portrait of an elderly man the same way as a studio head shot of a young woman.
A raw processor is just one of those techno-creative tools that is used along the way. The boundary between (or the distribution of tasks) between the various bits of processing software is also a matter of both product design and personal taste. Many forum wars have been fought over the "best" way of doing things and choice of tools, but truth is that they are all different and differ as well in the results produced based on the operator.
-bob
 

markowich

New member
Respectfully I am requesting your source for the results showing HC lenses beating the Mamiya counterparts.


Thank you,
Steve Hendrix
steve,
just my private testing. in particular i am referring to 28mm, 120mm and 210mm. a while ago i did tests with a P45 on an H1 and (another P45) on an AFD II.
peter
 
Top