Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
:thumbs:
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!
Demo S2 at Kurland Photo(ebay)
- Thread starter glenerrolrd
- Start date
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Marc,
Hasselblad is the right decision for you in the moment. Never saw a vendor in MF digital who could do this magic on their sensor data - resulting in stunning IQ of the end product - print, display, web.
Leica is far away from that. Even with the M9, which I admire because of the form factor for FF and the superb lenses, they are miles away from what can be achieved WRT IQ compared to Olympus, Nikon, Sony etc.
Leica might need another 1 or 2 years to turn that digital processing disadvantage around. And so they will need for their lens lineup of the S System to become somehow competitive to Hasselblad and Phase.
Means 1 - 2 years to hang around with great other gear. But by then there is definitely the need for an S3. Will they be able to deliver?
PeterA
Well-known member
I am surprised to hear you say that - maybe my standards for IQ are lower than yours..
I am extremely pleased with my M9 .
1) I doubt if I would post images from Hasselblad, Phase, Sinar, Leica S2 (Which I cant) anybody would be able to tell which image comes from which camera.
2) Peter,
having used the D3x for over a year, and using the D700 and E_P2 now along with the M9 I can not see how you come to your conclusion about M9 IQ.
The IQ of all three is great, but overall I prefer the M9 IQ over Nikon (maybe except image at high ISO) and the IQ of both D700 and M9 over the E-P2.
E-P2 is fine, because its smaller camera, nice form factor and has video and can take all kind of lenses, but the M9 IQ is for my taste the one which comes closest to MF IQ.
2) Peter,
having used the D3x for over a year, and using the D700 and E_P2 now along with the M9 I can not see how you come to your conclusion about M9 IQ.
The IQ of all three is great, but overall I prefer the M9 IQ over Nikon (maybe except image at high ISO) and the IQ of both D700 and M9 over the E-P2.
E-P2 is fine, because its smaller camera, nice form factor and has video and can take all kind of lenses, but the M9 IQ is for my taste the one which comes closest to MF IQ.
PeterA
Well-known member
On the internet - no one can tell what camera made anything.
On a printed page no one can tell the difference between any 10 + megapixel camera @ 10X8
On a large print 2x4' and greater no one can tell the difference between any camera with 16+ megapixels
Except for stuff which is about detail like the pimple on the gnats nose a mile away type BS.
Everyone justifies their purchases by reference to their personal peccadilloes everyone likes to think that thy are really good photographers
when the reality is that
for most of us we scratch the surface of competency making postcard shots to please ourselves - and there is nothing wrong with that at all.
but to say that the M9 IQ cant match CaNikon OlympuSony is very very ...weird - I say this because I KNOW my M9 files match up as good bt in most cases BETTER than any other 35mm system I own or use.
my photography has actually gone backwards the more obsessed I became with megapixels and blah blah elctrotechnogeek BS My adventures in MF land have been from an artistic point of view - Alpa excluded - a total waste of time producing in the main LESS WORTHY photography than 35mm film cameras. In short maybe $100k + of stupid sunk costs in over priced fat bodies butt ugly specialist studio/tripod nonsense.
The M9 has freed me up to get back to shooting full frame with decent lenses in a walk around package.
Everything is going sooner rather than later except for one digi back to put on an artec/Alpa one Nikon D series camera for telephoto work and my M9.
the S2 - well it COULD have been the replacement for all the MF gear I find lovely and pretty an interesting - and useless for the style of shooting I prefer. In order to buy an S2 and thre lens system I woudl have to trade in sell 15 Zeiss/Scheinder/HC lenses two digi backs and a few bodies and then toss some capital on top
not a value proposition for me.
On a printed page no one can tell the difference between any 10 + megapixel camera @ 10X8
On a large print 2x4' and greater no one can tell the difference between any camera with 16+ megapixels
Except for stuff which is about detail like the pimple on the gnats nose a mile away type BS.
Everyone justifies their purchases by reference to their personal peccadilloes everyone likes to think that thy are really good photographers
when the reality is that
for most of us we scratch the surface of competency making postcard shots to please ourselves - and there is nothing wrong with that at all.
but to say that the M9 IQ cant match CaNikon OlympuSony is very very ...weird - I say this because I KNOW my M9 files match up as good bt in most cases BETTER than any other 35mm system I own or use.
my photography has actually gone backwards the more obsessed I became with megapixels and blah blah elctrotechnogeek BS My adventures in MF land have been from an artistic point of view - Alpa excluded - a total waste of time producing in the main LESS WORTHY photography than 35mm film cameras. In short maybe $100k + of stupid sunk costs in over priced fat bodies butt ugly specialist studio/tripod nonsense.
The M9 has freed me up to get back to shooting full frame with decent lenses in a walk around package.
Everything is going sooner rather than later except for one digi back to put on an artec/Alpa one Nikon D series camera for telephoto work and my M9.
the S2 - well it COULD have been the replacement for all the MF gear I find lovely and pretty an interesting - and useless for the style of shooting I prefer. In order to buy an S2 and thre lens system I woudl have to trade in sell 15 Zeiss/Scheinder/HC lenses two digi backs and a few bodies and then toss some capital on top
not a value proposition for me.
Far away? I think you are joking... please make some samples where this big difference is... just to says Leica is far away is not really helpful.
Your first argument seems to be contradicted by your second argument.
To flip it ... I could post images from a D3x, D700, Sony A900, Canon 1DsMKIII and M9 (which I CAN), that I doubt anybody would be able to tell which image came from which camera.
All that says is that one can be selective in choosing which images to show, and one's taste and skill in processing no matter how long it may take ... with the commonality being sub 1 meg jpgs to post. It also discounts the differences that drive selection by people with skilled minds and experienced eyes.
In the end we have our "impressions" of image quality that we get from each of these systems and how in-sync the whole imaging chain is with our subjective tastes.
For example, my personal expectations of Leica image qualities were set by use of a DMR and now a M9. Way back when I first posted my impressions of the S2, I lamented that those expectations were not met. Nice, but not what I expected.
Absolutely nothing wrong with what comes out of the S2, but it didn't match up with the look and feel I was expecting ... where this new H4D/40 is inexplicably closer to doing that ... which was an unexpected bonus that surprised me in a very positive way, since my intent is to shoot jobs with the MFD and M9 whenever possible. Strange bedfellows to be sure, but I'll take any luck that comes my way.
Oddly, it has restored the old film relationship I once had with a M7 and Hasselblad V ... which were compatible IQs to my eye and the mainstays of my gear closet.
-Marc
Marc, indeed my feeling is that the IQ differences between different MF sensors/systems may not be as big as those between various DSLRs, M9 and m4/3.
But anyways, I do not doubt that you didnt like the S2 files as much as the Hassy ones, and yes, I also do believe I like the Rollei lenses with Dalsa sensor images from my Hy6 quite a bit, I just wondered how big/small differences are.
But anyways, I do not doubt that you didnt like the S2 files as much as the Hassy ones, and yes, I also do believe I like the Rollei lenses with Dalsa sensor images from my Hy6 quite a bit, I just wondered how big/small differences are.
I think you are right in that respect ... MFD choices are more similar. However, I do believe they exist. There was definitely a different look to the Leaf Aptus 75s I used on a Mamiya 645 with Zeiss FE lenses ... one I liked quite a bit BTW.
That was one case where form factor out-weighted subjective IQ preferences. I didn't like the pre-Phase Mamiya camera, and the FE lenses were all manual focus ... which didn't meet my primary application requirements. IQ means nothing if you can't get the shot in the first place. Plus, at the time the Leaf Capture software for tethered work was archaic compared to C1 or Phocus. A lot of that is changing now because of Phase One.
I also really do agree with you concerning the M9. It is an image maker that performs well beyond one would think from just looking at the spec's on paper. It is without a doubt, my favorite camera kit right now. :thumbs:
-Marc
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I do not understand why it always becomes so religious if one says anything not so good about Leica 
Anyway I have my own experiences with the cameras I mentioned and I know what I like from them. Maybe others see that different, this is fine. So be happy with your M9s - no problem with that. For me just not the camera I expected to come after the M8 and just making the same sensor bigger and blow the electronics up to deal with more data is not really such a stunning thing and not worth the money for me. I rather will invest this money in the H System and the M43 (which is cheap anyway).
Coming to the point here - nothing from Leica - absolutely nothing comes close to the H System in terms of IQ today. I intentionally speak about the H System, because for me even my "old" H3D39 produces nicer results than the S2, not even speaking about the new H4D40 or H4D50. And I do not even start comparing these to the M9, this is nonsense, waste of time and a totally different game. But also my experiences with the S2 showed me that the S System is far from what Hasselblad can produce today if used correct and in combination with Phocus. This was and is the reason to forget about the current digital Leica offerings (M and S) and let some time pass by, while I happily can generate stunning results from my Hasselblad and even my small and tiny and cheap M43 camera.
What surprises me about M43, especially the EP2 is, that this small and relatively cheap camera produces exceptional results. Even at higher ISO. And this straight out of the box. I am only talking about RAW files! Never saw these results from my M8 nor from the M9 I tested. So finally M43 became a real replacement for my M system (lenses still on the shelves in the hope for an improved M10). But for that small amount of money the M43 really is a great performer! And it is definitely faster and easier to work compared to an M camera, not talking about some exceptions where the classical M can still win. But for general use while expecting high IQ the M43 is a clear winner - at least for me. Happy if some of you do not agree
Finally Nikon - it is really hard to argue that the M9 produces better result than a D3S or D3X. These are pretty individual observations anyway! For me even the D700 (despite of less MP) is the clear winner compared to the M9, at least as long as it is used with the right lenses. One observation I made (during my Sony time) is, that the highly praised Zeiss glass (I really was a Zeiss fan in the old Hasselblad and Contax days) lost it's leading edge compared to latest lens designs from Nikon (and I assume Canon and others as well). I could not back the praises of the Zeiss lenses for the Sony A900 anymore. Just no difference, if not to say that I liked some Nikon glass better. Again I know there are a lot of different opinions, but for me what counts is the results I can see at the end of the day. And I could not see any real differences here.
Anyway I have my own experiences with the cameras I mentioned and I know what I like from them. Maybe others see that different, this is fine. So be happy with your M9s - no problem with that. For me just not the camera I expected to come after the M8 and just making the same sensor bigger and blow the electronics up to deal with more data is not really such a stunning thing and not worth the money for me. I rather will invest this money in the H System and the M43 (which is cheap anyway).
Coming to the point here - nothing from Leica - absolutely nothing comes close to the H System in terms of IQ today. I intentionally speak about the H System, because for me even my "old" H3D39 produces nicer results than the S2, not even speaking about the new H4D40 or H4D50. And I do not even start comparing these to the M9, this is nonsense, waste of time and a totally different game. But also my experiences with the S2 showed me that the S System is far from what Hasselblad can produce today if used correct and in combination with Phocus. This was and is the reason to forget about the current digital Leica offerings (M and S) and let some time pass by, while I happily can generate stunning results from my Hasselblad and even my small and tiny and cheap M43 camera.
What surprises me about M43, especially the EP2 is, that this small and relatively cheap camera produces exceptional results. Even at higher ISO. And this straight out of the box. I am only talking about RAW files! Never saw these results from my M8 nor from the M9 I tested. So finally M43 became a real replacement for my M system (lenses still on the shelves in the hope for an improved M10). But for that small amount of money the M43 really is a great performer! And it is definitely faster and easier to work compared to an M camera, not talking about some exceptions where the classical M can still win. But for general use while expecting high IQ the M43 is a clear winner - at least for me. Happy if some of you do not agree
Finally Nikon - it is really hard to argue that the M9 produces better result than a D3S or D3X. These are pretty individual observations anyway! For me even the D700 (despite of less MP) is the clear winner compared to the M9, at least as long as it is used with the right lenses. One observation I made (during my Sony time) is, that the highly praised Zeiss glass (I really was a Zeiss fan in the old Hasselblad and Contax days) lost it's leading edge compared to latest lens designs from Nikon (and I assume Canon and others as well). I could not back the praises of the Zeiss lenses for the Sony A900 anymore. Just no difference, if not to say that I liked some Nikon glass better. Again I know there are a lot of different opinions, but for me what counts is the results I can see at the end of the day. And I could not see any real differences here.
Last edited:
Peter,
for me its not religious I just share my experience and my opinion, and it seems we have a different opinion/experience regarding the M9 vs M4/3 vs D700 (and again, I do like all three cameras).
Back to the original post it does seem that at least in this forum the interest in the S2 is not really the highest. This sounds maybe weired but if I was a manager at Leica I would step out of the S2 project as fast as possible and would see that I get the M9 production running, and would see if I could offer Leica lenses in mounts for Canon/Nikon etc.
I wish Leica success but I just believe they have the wrong strategy with the S2system-at least pricewise.
for me its not religious I just share my experience and my opinion, and it seems we have a different opinion/experience regarding the M9 vs M4/3 vs D700 (and again, I do like all three cameras).
Back to the original post it does seem that at least in this forum the interest in the S2 is not really the highest. This sounds maybe weired but if I was a manager at Leica I would step out of the S2 project as fast as possible and would see that I get the M9 production running, and would see if I could offer Leica lenses in mounts for Canon/Nikon etc.
I wish Leica success but I just believe they have the wrong strategy with the S2system-at least pricewise.
KeithL
Well-known member
Let's face it, this forum has more than it's fair share of wealthy enthusiast photographers, many of whom are Leica users and aficionados. If Leica can't sell the S2 here, and it appears there are few takers, then what chance has Leica of selling it elsewhere?
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Exactly and me included there are many Leica fans here. It's just not turning heads as Leica hoped
woodyspedden
New member
And if the new Pentax is as good as it looks on paper and starts selling in the U.S. it will be more negative news for Leica. Sad!
Woody
A most salient synopsis of the prospects for the S2, all technical and emotive debates aside.
As was debated when the camera was first announced - the proof of the pudding re: it becoming a true market player vs a collector camera in-waiting was the what happened after the pregnant snake effect that would be the "we filled all our pre-orders" sales from the bleeding edge adopters/devotees.
It's a nice but very premium product with a very subjective advantage in form factor and sealing (most will never see rain anyway) but with no clear advantage in IQ, no custom software or profiles, a stunted lens selection actually in the market, no legacy lenses, support and service concerns, no rental presence, etc.
Now a lot of the same could be said about the Pentax, but it has legacy glass - and there is that small matter of the price delta between the two systems.
Different time in the lifecycle of the MFDB market and the S2 might have been able to pen itself a different legacy.
As was debated when the camera was first announced - the proof of the pudding re: it becoming a true market player vs a collector camera in-waiting was the what happened after the pregnant snake effect that would be the "we filled all our pre-orders" sales from the bleeding edge adopters/devotees.
It's a nice but very premium product with a very subjective advantage in form factor and sealing (most will never see rain anyway) but with no clear advantage in IQ, no custom software or profiles, a stunted lens selection actually in the market, no legacy lenses, support and service concerns, no rental presence, etc.
Now a lot of the same could be said about the Pentax, but it has legacy glass - and there is that small matter of the price delta between the two systems.
Different time in the lifecycle of the MFDB market and the S2 might have been able to pen itself a different legacy.
Last edited:
I have been a Leica R and M user since the 1970's......some I bought new but most on the used market. I have been a working pro and used Leica for my personal photos and other brands for paid assignments. I prefer the quality of Leica glass but I could never depend on service turn around time nor could I afford to have backup for camera bodies.
I waited for a couple years in hopes that an R10 would be introduced, so that I could use my R lenses. Leica decided not to produce this and left me with no choice but to sell my Leica R9/DMR and all the lenses. This decision by Leica may have been good for the company but not for the customer who will take a large loss in selling lenses that have no current Leica product to be used on.
When making a decision on what to replace my R9/DMR with it came down to quality, performance and value. Should I spend $50K for a Leica S2 kit which is new, not yet fully available and unproven or $30K for a current medium format digital Phase or Hasselblad kit that are proven pro tools. Phase offered me a great trade in for my Leica DMR back.....what has Leica offered its loyal customers for trading in R systems towards the new S2? I will now be buying Phase products for the next five or more years and not Leica R or S!
I waited for a couple years in hopes that an R10 would be introduced, so that I could use my R lenses. Leica decided not to produce this and left me with no choice but to sell my Leica R9/DMR and all the lenses. This decision by Leica may have been good for the company but not for the customer who will take a large loss in selling lenses that have no current Leica product to be used on.
When making a decision on what to replace my R9/DMR with it came down to quality, performance and value. Should I spend $50K for a Leica S2 kit which is new, not yet fully available and unproven or $30K for a current medium format digital Phase or Hasselblad kit that are proven pro tools. Phase offered me a great trade in for my Leica DMR back.....what has Leica offered its loyal customers for trading in R systems towards the new S2? I will now be buying Phase products for the next five or more years and not Leica R or S!
Actually, I would do the opposite ... if I were managing the S2 project, I get the best team of photo software people on building some S2 profiles for inclusion in Light Room 3. Leica should have had their own S2 software, but didn't, so the next best thing would be to get some great profiles up and running ASAP. Not to mention getting the 35 and Macro out the door so pros would take the system more seriously.
BTW, I think they did back-burner the S2 stuff to get M9s out the door to get capital flowing. The back-up of M9s could be something as dumb as a short supply of the batteries ... which is also on back-order all over the place. Can't ship a digital camera without a battery.
-Marc
A full court press by Leica to re-start the S2's market momentum via $$ and man-hrs to get custom profiles and lenses/accessories in the market, getting the bloody thing into as many A-list shooter's hands as possible and a price drop (LOL) might help matters, but once momentum/minds-eye presence on a new hyped product is lost, its VERY tough to get back.
Chatter about the S2 seems all but non-existent at this juncture and S2 news via Solms also seems to have died. The inevitable "rah-rah" management (or in Leica's case LUF as well) assertions to the contrary, IF Solms is getting nervous, it may do just the opposite and dial-back the rate of cash flow into the product until it gets a getter read on what the horizon looks like - reducing the product's presence on potential buyer short lists even further. This of course results in fewer sales and fewer sales results in less $$ into expanding the product line...and around and around we go.
Shame if it happens, but should the S2 end up a collector special, it certainly won't be because of a lack of market interest in the CONCEPT of the product (at a suitable price of course).
Chatter about the S2 seems all but non-existent at this juncture and S2 news via Solms also seems to have died. The inevitable "rah-rah" management (or in Leica's case LUF as well) assertions to the contrary, IF Solms is getting nervous, it may do just the opposite and dial-back the rate of cash flow into the product until it gets a getter read on what the horizon looks like - reducing the product's presence on potential buyer short lists even further. This of course results in fewer sales and fewer sales results in less $$ into expanding the product line...and around and around we go.
Shame if it happens, but should the S2 end up a collector special, it certainly won't be because of a lack of market interest in the CONCEPT of the product (at a suitable price of course).
Last edited:
Don Libby
Well-known member
I've now had the opportunity to have the S2 in my hands and test it twice; the first time was with Jack & Guy late last year, the other a couple months ago in Carmel. I also has a brief chance to use the X1 the same time as I was with Jack & Guy.
I am a fine art landscape photographer by trade and in doing so I've shot with 35mm before moving to medium format, first with a Mamiya AFDII then on to a Phase One AFDIII using both a P30+ and finally a P45+. I made yet another move in shooting medium format from using the AFD to a technical camera namely the Cambo WRS. During the brief period in which I had and used both the Phase III and Cambo I enjoyed the ability to move the P45+ between the two systems. While I've since sold all the Mamiya glass and the Phase body I still retain the Cambo for my work. I decided that I'd limit myself to the technical camera as that what suited my particular type of photography best. The decision was based on what was the best tool for the job. That said if I ever find myself requiring a broader range of shooting needs I would not hesitate in the least in buying another Phase body. The bottom line for me is the ability to switch my digital back between systems.
There are several things I don't like about the S2. To name a few is the format - it isn't 35mm and it isn't quite medium format - it's somewhere in between. I don't like having a closed system and by this I mean a system that I can only use as the S2; I can't remove the digital back and use it on say a technical camera. It's purely a DSLR and nothing more. Being a landscape artist means I don't normally shoot indoors; my "studio" is where I happen to be at the time (Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, Death Valley, etc.) which also means I'm subject to the whims of the environment which can lean to a dirty or very dirty sensor. It's very easy to clean the P45+, just remove the back and there it is. It has never been easy to clean a sensor of a DSLR which is another reason I don't care for the S2. I just spent hours cleaning my 1DsII IR camera and it still isn't totally clean. (At least Sandy's 1DsIII has an auto cleaning cycle which seems to work.)
It isn't all doom and gloom on the S2 as I do like the way it feels in my hands and I also like the image quality. Bottom line is that at least for me I just don't like it and yes I feel I've given it enough time.
I'm not trying to bash Leica as I am a very proud own of a M9. The decision to buy the M9 was based after trying out the X1 and seeing how it could work into my current workflow. There are several of the same things I dislike about the M9 if I were to compare it to the P45+ namely the cleaning of the sensor but that's the nature of the beast. I also remind myself that there simply isn't a one size fits all or perfect camera system; you just have to find one that's as close as possible to your needs.
In looking at new equipment I also remind myself of the car commercial where the spokesperson ask, "when you turn on the car does it return the favor?" I've asked that same question on every camera system I own and the answer is yes; the answer for the S2 has always been no.
I guess the bottom line here is that while the S2 is not for me it maybe for someone else and I wish them good luck.
This has just been my 2¢ worth on the subject of the S2 so take it for its worth.
Don
I am a fine art landscape photographer by trade and in doing so I've shot with 35mm before moving to medium format, first with a Mamiya AFDII then on to a Phase One AFDIII using both a P30+ and finally a P45+. I made yet another move in shooting medium format from using the AFD to a technical camera namely the Cambo WRS. During the brief period in which I had and used both the Phase III and Cambo I enjoyed the ability to move the P45+ between the two systems. While I've since sold all the Mamiya glass and the Phase body I still retain the Cambo for my work. I decided that I'd limit myself to the technical camera as that what suited my particular type of photography best. The decision was based on what was the best tool for the job. That said if I ever find myself requiring a broader range of shooting needs I would not hesitate in the least in buying another Phase body. The bottom line for me is the ability to switch my digital back between systems.
There are several things I don't like about the S2. To name a few is the format - it isn't 35mm and it isn't quite medium format - it's somewhere in between. I don't like having a closed system and by this I mean a system that I can only use as the S2; I can't remove the digital back and use it on say a technical camera. It's purely a DSLR and nothing more. Being a landscape artist means I don't normally shoot indoors; my "studio" is where I happen to be at the time (Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, Death Valley, etc.) which also means I'm subject to the whims of the environment which can lean to a dirty or very dirty sensor. It's very easy to clean the P45+, just remove the back and there it is. It has never been easy to clean a sensor of a DSLR which is another reason I don't care for the S2. I just spent hours cleaning my 1DsII IR camera and it still isn't totally clean. (At least Sandy's 1DsIII has an auto cleaning cycle which seems to work.)
It isn't all doom and gloom on the S2 as I do like the way it feels in my hands and I also like the image quality. Bottom line is that at least for me I just don't like it and yes I feel I've given it enough time.
I'm not trying to bash Leica as I am a very proud own of a M9. The decision to buy the M9 was based after trying out the X1 and seeing how it could work into my current workflow. There are several of the same things I dislike about the M9 if I were to compare it to the P45+ namely the cleaning of the sensor but that's the nature of the beast. I also remind myself that there simply isn't a one size fits all or perfect camera system; you just have to find one that's as close as possible to your needs.
In looking at new equipment I also remind myself of the car commercial where the spokesperson ask, "when you turn on the car does it return the favor?" I've asked that same question on every camera system I own and the answer is yes; the answer for the S2 has always been no.
I guess the bottom line here is that while the S2 is not for me it maybe for someone else and I wish them good luck.
This has just been my 2¢ worth on the subject of the S2 so take it for its worth.
Don
So its the same for the Hasselblad H4D-40...