Leica S2 Studio Shoot - Nov 20th

[Dale Allyn]

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?

snip...
-Marc

Am I confused, or are there some facts twisted here? I thought that this Leica S2 shoot was provided by a Leica dealer (Dale Labs and David Farkas), not a Phase One dealer who has just added Leica (such as Capture Integration, for example). I'm not choosing sides, but my read was that the tests were done at Dale Labs (a Leica dealer) and the choice of not using Phocus to process the Hasselblad files was that of the Hasselblad owner.

To be clear, I feel that each respective file should be processed using the best, proprietary (if necessary), RAW processing tools. But I read this remark to suggest to implicate a Phase dealer in wonky comparisons, when as I understand it, the demo was at a Leica dealer. Maybe I've followed this thread improperly and am now off in the brush.

 

[fotografz]

Am I confused, or are there some facts twisted here? I thought that this Leica S2 shoot was provided by a Leica dealer (Dale Labs and David Farkas), not a Phase One dealer who has just added Leica (such as Capture Integration, for example). I'm not choosing sides, but my read was that the tests were done at Dale Labs (a Leica dealer) and the choice of not using Phocus to process the Hasselblad files was that of the Hasselblad owner.

To be clear, I feel that each respective file should be processed using the best, proprietary (if necessary), RAW processing tools. But I read this remark to suggest to implicate a Phase dealer in wonky comparisons, when as I understand it, the demo was at a Leica dealer. Maybe I've followed this thread improperly and am now off in the brush.

Yes, the cross-over influences are indeed confusing ... I was provided a S2 to use by Chris Snipes, Sales Manager Professional Market of Dale Labs ... Chris is also President of Image Productions, a Phase One reseller.

I DO NOT take comparative testing seriously when set up or performed by ANY representative of ANY company no matter how the business threads may connect them. Not to impinge the integrity of anyone, or any company ... but my experience has been that the apparent results usually get reported as favorable to what is being offered ... no surprise there. This is a function of what doesn't get reported as much as what does.

In the end were are dealing with sales people no matter how nice they are.

IMO, to think otherwise is being pretty gullible.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

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.

Your choices are your choices, but now you are resorting to unveiled insults by directly implying anyone selecting a Hasselblad H camera prefers "cheap and wrong."

This is a clear sign of running out of real discussion points and resorting to retaliatory insults.


-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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

LOL well for testing you don't really do anything anyway just flat process to see what base is. Than go from their with other techniques. Bob I love when you disrespect me, gets my train running in the morning.

 

[ddk]

Sorry David, but I was wondering why you picked this image with such flat (read horrible) lighting, shot of the intern, late at night when you had a whole day with models? Surely these can't be the best that you came up with! I know that its impossible to satisfy everyone's curiosity here but images like this tell you nothing about the IQ of a system and worse still nothing about the more important stuff like rendering, bokeh, DR, etc...

Please don't take this the wrong way, I very much appreciate your effort and the spirit of the post.

I had a chance to shoot the Leica S2 again yesterday in a controlled Studio environment and compare the results from my Sinar e75LV/Hy6 with those from a Phase P65 (don't know if it was + or not) mounted on the Phase 645 DF, and a Hasselblad H3D31. All the kits were shot at base ISO with standard lenses except for mine which I shot with both the Schneider 80mm f/2 Xenotar and the Zeiss 110 f/2 Planar. The main light was a Broncolor Para FB 220 metered to f/11. The evening ran late so I did not get copies of the images from the other kits but I've attached mine so you can see what we were shooting (this is Zak, one of the studio interns, who volunteered to sit for us after the models left for the evening). The Phase images were processed in Capture One, the Sinar went from Exposure to LR 3 beta, S2 directly to LR 3 beta and 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. In my opinion, the Phase, Sinar and Leica files were all terrific. Each had it's own signature (for lack of a better word) but I would attribute that more to camera profiles and processing than from the hardware. If they were giving away one of these kits as a door prize I would have chosen the Leica S2 but not because it produces better images. I just love the size of the camera, the weather sealing, and the feel of it. It's a camera that I can see taking with me when I would otherwise leave my MF kit behind, e.g. traveling. It's easier to shoot hand held than the competition, again, IMHO. Each kit has it's own strengths and weaknesses and it comes down to which feature set suits you as a shooter. I love the rotating back, WLF and ability to change platforms offered by the Sinar but for what I'm shooting and how I'm using my MF kit these days the Leica S2 would suit me better. I won't get into the issue of pricing because I think that horse has been beaten to death

 

[Christopher]

Well perhaps I should have written the full meaning out instead of shorting it. It certainly wasn't meant as an insult. It's just that I feel that way, that does not mean the camera is cheap or of bad quality, it is just my own personal feeling. When I was referring that other people like it that way, I more meant that some people just like a different camera feeling, as some with the Leaf Afi, which I liked even worse than the H3D (just talking about handling and shooting with a camera not really about features or image quality) That however, does not change what I feel about the camera. One could go on and on, but does it really matter in the end ? We buy what we like and what works to earn us money.

When it comes to your opinion on the test, I fully agree. A company wants to sell their product so I would never think that such a review (made my any camera company) is objective. It goes for every industry. No company would ever tell you that their product is great, but the competition is as good, but could be cheaper or anything similar. It can be helpful to check out some raw files to get a feeling for a camera, but a serious test can only be done in person shooting with the actual cameras.

 

[fotografz]

Well perhaps I should have written the full meaning out instead of shorting it. It certainly wasn't meant as an insult. It's just that I feel that way, that does not mean the camera is cheap or of bad quality, it is just my own personal feeling. When I was referring that other people like it that way, I more meant that some people just like a different camera feeling, as some with the Leaf Afi, which I liked even worse than the H3D (just talking about handling and shooting with a camera not really about features or image quality) That however, does not change what I feel about the camera. One could go on and on, but does it really matter in the end ? We buy what we like and what works to earn us money.

As I said, we like what we like. Some think the Hy6 the best MF camera ever designed, others like you don't. I also have certain feelings about certain cameras and would never even consider them. I assume others that prefer something else are intelligent and know their needs. If I have experiential information counter to an opinion based on actual use, I most certainly would share it for consideration.

Peace,

-Marc

 

[David K]

Sorry David, but I was wondering why you picked this image with such flat (read horrible) lighting, shot of the intern, late at night when you had a whole day with models? Surely these can't be the best that you came up with! I know that its impossible to satisfy everyone's curiosity here but images like this tell you nothing about the IQ of a system and worse still nothing about the more important stuff like rendering, bokeh, DR, etc...

Please don't take this the wrong way, I very much appreciate your effort and the spirit of the post.

David, no worries about me taking your question the wrong way. Let me try to put it in perspective. The studio event was hosted by David as a demo for the S2 not as a comparative test shoot for different systems. Don't know the exact number of folks who showed up but it was over 20 participants, David and his wife, Chris Snipes and Roland Wolff from Leica, and about four models but only the one camera. In short, a lot of people. Everybody wanted a chance to shoot each model and, in many cases, with both the lenses that were available. As you can imagine, this took hours to complete. At the end of the shooting I told David that I wanted to do a head to head comparison of the S2 and my Sinar kit for the kind of stuff that I frequently shoot. By that time the models were exhausted and had left the studio. As long as we were setting up for my requested test we decided to add the Phase and Hasselblad kits. All the shooting was done tethered into LR 3 beta except for my files which needed to be run through the Sinar eXposure software which David F (who uses a PC) didn't have. Consequently, all the files shot reside on David F's laptop in folders identifying the shooter. David will be providing those images to each of the participants but hasn't had a chance to do so yet. I've got plenty of images that I shot with my Sinar kit but I didn't think anybody was much interested in them (if someone is, they are welcome to drop me a pm and I'll provide the DNG's gladly). Bottom line is that there are plenty of great images of good looking models taken with the S2 (including many shot by my good friend and excellent photographer Andre Rowe the day before) but nothing besides the posted shot that shows comparative results from the different systems.

 

[LJL]

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

Despite the friendly needling of Guy, , I have to agree with you on this, Bob. When I was shooting equestrian events several years ago, I was killing myself on the processing side of things. colleagues thought I was nuts....just post quick JPEGs and then process any ordered stuff later, they said. That was the mantra of most event shooting, and pretty much still is. That is where formulae and routines help a lot. I was the crazed one there too. I handled each file separately, no batch processing. I tweaked each selected shot how I thought it best. Used to take me several days to process the thousands of shots from a big weekend event. Bottom line, those individually handled images were all "finals" by the time I posted them, and resulted in many times more sales than my competitors at the time. I have never really gotten out of that method. Yes, I may lift and stamp some settings on a series of shots taken in the exact same light, but even then each gets tweaked a bit more individually. If I wanted them to look routine, then I would shoot JPEGs and be done with it :salute:

So, like Bob, I think that processing is just another step. Yes, use the best tool for that step, but it is only one more step. I learned to take the best care for each step in the process, and things usually turn out quite well.

I also agree with several others here....to evaluate things in a comparison test, level the playing field with the light and stuff, then use the conversion and processing that is from the OEM, as that should be best tuned for the gear. In Leica's case, they do not have their own converter software beyond the in-camera stuff, so it seems appropriate to use whatever one is most comfortable using, hopefully with good profiles for that conversion. In the case of Hasselblad, Phocus should be used, as it is nicely tuned to their files, from what I am seeing. May not be the most familiar tool, but it is probably the best for the job. Same holds for Phase....use C1. Otherwise, there are just more variables being mixed in for folks to debate endlessly.

LJ

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Love needling. LOL

This thread got way to serious. Have a little fun folks. Okay espresso number 3 coming right up.

 

[ddk]

The situation is clear now, thanks for the explanation David!

David, no worries about me taking your question the wrong way. Let me try to put it in perspective. The studio event was hosted by David as a demo for the S2 not as a comparative test shoot for different systems. Don't know the exact number of folks who showed up but it was over 20 participants, David and his wife, Chris Snipes and Roland Wolff from Leica, and about four models but only the one camera. In short, a lot of people. Everybody wanted a chance to shoot each model and, in many cases, with both the lenses that were available. As you can imagine, this took hours to complete. At the end of the shooting I told David that I wanted to do a head to head comparison of the S2 and my Sinar kit for the kind of stuff that I frequently shoot. By that time the models were exhausted and had left the studio. As long as we were setting up for my requested test we decided to add the Phase and Hasselblad kits. All the shooting was done tethered into LR 3 beta except for my files which needed to be run through the Sinar eXposure software which David F (who uses a PC) didn't have. Consequently, all the files shot reside on David F's laptop in folders identifying the shooter. David will be providing those images to each of the participants but hasn't had a chance to do so yet. I've got plenty of images that I shot with my Sinar kit but I didn't think anybody was much interested in them (if someone is, they are welcome to drop me a pm and I'll provide the DNG's gladly). Bottom line is that there are plenty of great images of good looking models taken with the S2 (including many shot by my good friend and excellent photographer Andre Rowe the day before) but nothing besides the posted shot that shows comparative results from the different systems.

 

[Jack]

We need two more David's to jump in on this thread

:ROTFL:

 

[Jack]

Yes, the cross-over influences are indeed confusing ... I was provided a S2 to use by Chris Snipes, Sales Manager Professional Market of Dale Labs ... Chris is also President of Image Productions, a Phase One reseller.

I DO NOT take comparative testing seriously when set up or performed by ANY representative of ANY company no matter how the business threads may connect them.

Thanks for explaining this Marc, I was confused by your original post too. I for one had no idea there was any connection or partnering between Chris Snipes of Image Productions and David Farkas of Dale Labs --- obviously I missed the memo...

As for any given tester's veracity, I base my conclusions on my own tests and those of folks I trust; a trust that has been earned regardless of whether they are resellers or not...

 

[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

Thanks Peter.

It's possible an HC 28mm may be slightly more resistant to edge smearing than the P1 28mm on an AFDII.. In other respects, I find them equivalent. Perhaps a P1 28mm with the P1 lens corrections would yield a different result for you from what you saw on the AFDII.

The 120 result frankly surprises me as Doug Peterson has done some tests comparing the HC 120 and the P1 D 120 and found them very very close until you stop down, at which point his test showed the P1 D 120 moving ahead.

http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/

The Mamiya 210 - I don't have any real experience with but since it is not an updated "digital" lens, so I wouldn't be surprised if a modern HC lens showed superior sharpness.

Lens tests (well, any test) are really difficult, but - no promises - I intend to try and spend some time producing some reliable comparison tests at some point. The great thing about lens tests is that the results often surprise.


Thanks,
Steve Hendrix

 

[ptomsu]

Thanks Peter.

It's possible an HC 28mm may be slightly more resistant to edge smearing than the P1 28mm on an AFDII.. In other respects, I find them equivalent. Perhaps a P1 28mm with the P1 lens corrections would yield a different result for you from what you saw on the AFDII.

The 120 result frankly surprises me as Doug Peterson has done some tests comparing the HC 120 and the P1 D 120 and found them very very close until you stop down, at which point his test showed the P1 D 120 moving ahead.

http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/

The Mamiya 210 - I don't have any real experience with but since it is not an updated "digital" lens, so I wouldn't be surprised if a modern HC lens showed superior sharpness.

Lens tests (well, any test) are really difficult, but - no promises - I intend to try and spend some time producing some reliable comparison tests at some point. The great thing about lens tests is that the results often surprise.


Thanks,
Steve Hendrix

I must say that I actually do not give anything on these test shoots. Testing diffraction - well how did one select the lenses? I am pretty sure that you could find better or worse samples from Hasselblad and Phase as well. Sorry to say but I am pretty sure this is just sample variation, not a characteristic of the lens itself.

I want to state here, I am NOT a Hasselblad fan, so this is NOT the reason I jump in here. But I think in order to be able to really tell something about a lens you would have to test a whole bunch of same lenses of vendor A against the same number of same lenses of vendor B - would assume in terms of statistical relevance at least 10 or so.

Everything else could be just spreading of the manufacturing results you test here.

Only vendor I would somehow trust is Leica with their S System, as they obviously have a much tighter control mechanism in place.

Knowing I put oil into the fire, but lets keep the discussions somehow lively

 

[Steve Hendrix]

I must say that I actually do not give anything on these test shoots. Testing diffraction - well how did one select the lenses? I am pretty sure that you could find better or worse samples from Hasselblad and Phase as well. Sorry to say but I am pretty sure this is just sample variation, not a characteristic of the lens itself.

I want to state here, I am NOT a Hasselblad fan, so this is NOT the reason I jump in here. But I think in order to be able to really tell something about a lens you would have to test a whole bunch of same lenses of vendor A against the same number of same lenses of vendor B - would assume in terms of statistical relevance at least 10 or so.

Everything else could be just spreading of the manufacturing results you test here.

Only vendor I would somehow trust is Leica with their S System, as they obviously have a much tighter control mechanism in place.

Knowing I put oil into the fire, but lets keep the discussions somehow lively

Peter:

Actually you make important points concerning sample variaion (as I also mentioned). It makes it difficult to do absolutely apples to apples tests. I do have the sense that medium format does have tighter control than say, Canon, but it doesn't mean there cannot be slight variations in quality.

That said, I have to mention that I have also tested HC 80mm and 35mm against P1 D 80mm and 28mm (that was a compromise, couldn't test the HC 28, since it wouldn't work on our P45+/H2 setup, and felt it not fair to stick the 35mm Mamiya in there).

Not meaning to imply anything definitive, but in those tests, I also found that the Phase One lenses were sharper after stopping down. So in at least 2 different testing sessions, we found sharper results stopped down when comparing Phase One D lenses to HC. It led me to the thought that the HC lenses are more optimized for larger apertures, while the P1 D lenses more optimized for smaller apertures. This could very well be the case, as anyone who read the excellent Hasselblad HC vs V lens article in the Hasselblad Victor magazine also read about conscious design decisions with regard to optimization of lenses.

And Peter, please by all means, do stir up - don't let this place get too calm. You may have to try harder though.


Steve Hendrix

 

[markowich]

Thanks Peter.

It's possible an HC 28mm may be slightly more resistant to edge smearing than the P1 28mm on an AFDII.. In other respects, I find them equivalent. Perhaps a P1 28mm with the P1 lens corrections would yield a different result for you from what you saw on the AFDII.

The 120 result frankly surprises me as Doug Peterson has done some tests comparing the HC 120 and the P1 D 120 and found them very very close until you stop down, at which point his test showed the P1 D 120 moving ahead.

http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/

The Mamiya 210 - I don't have any real experience with but since it is not an updated "digital" lens, so I wouldn't be surprised if a modern HC lens showed superior sharpness.

Lens tests (well, any test) are really difficult, but - no promises - I intend to try and spend some time producing some reliable comparison tests at some point. The great thing about lens tests is that the results often surprise.


Thanks,
Steve Hendrix

steve,
just to confirm what you are saying: i found the lens comparisms between HC(D) and mamiya gave close results, where other issues (software) could blend in. i did find the hassies more 'solid' than their phase counterparts, but also heavier of course. i personally can do without a leaf shutter and would like <1/800 sec exposure time. so after all.....
in any case both camera systems give WONDERFUL results, the choice between them is highly personal.
however, here is the usual complaint again: both systems feel like dinosaurs compared to my D3(x), as far as handling, AF, lack of live-view etc is concerned.i have to give credit to leica that they wanted to get out of this MF black hole with their S2, unfortunately they forgot that handling is not everything but that performance is also very important. so they designed a D3x style camera with a quasi MF sensor, a poor MF AF system, no live view, no modularity, bad high iso.....
beautiful body but the usual MF stuff inside, just lower MPX than i like.
peter

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Only vendor I would somehow trust is Leica with their S System, as they obviously have a much tighter control mechanism in place.

But that was not so much there history though Peter let's remember the M8. Now we are somewhat guessing here as well. Who really knows how good or bad Phase/Mamiya or the Hassy factories are and there control mechanisms.

 

[Bob]

Only vendor I would somehow trust is Leica with their S System, as they obviously have a much tighter control mechanism in place.

But that was not so much there history though Peter let's remember the M8. Now we are somewhat guessing here as well. Who really knows how good or bad Phase/Mamiya or the Hassy factories are and there control mechanisms.

Guy,
What is this based on?
My experience is that Leica has one of the least controlled manufacturing environments.
-bob

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm quoting Peter there Bob see post above Steve's . My radar went up too. LOL

Given the M8 I agree with you , it was a mess on release. The M9 was a major improvement and I will give them that. But that is a rebirth this S2 is a new baby in the oven by a long ways.