S2 versus H4D40/50 test

[gogopix]

Victor

At the risk of exposing my ignorance , I don t understand why you would select an overcast capture for purposing of discussing IQ? The bluish color cast desaturates the image and makes it flat. Bare with me on how I would .................................cut........................................................to every image.

Lots of ways to accomplish the same things .

I am not posting this as a critique but I honestly don t understand what people are referring too as taking 10 minutes an image. What exactly would you be working on?

What is difficult to separate out ,when doing comparisons between raw processors, is the IQ that is being derived thru superior conversion algorithms ,differences in profiles and the conversion presets .

Ok feel free to have at my POV ..I just don t get it?

I think you answered your own question!

I selected a shot that needed a good raw processor to get the exposure, color, contrast etc. closer to what might be an interesting photo. I actually did "AUTO" for exposure and WB in LR... but no reference for Leica files. I assume with a profile/pre-set-magic sauce one would get a pretty good image to work with. I believe, in this file there is a pretty damn could file; IQ that is. But, well, we don't see it.

Bob's discussion, your comments etc all point to what is frustrating-a system that is not yet end to end complete.

Maybe this is the wrong rant. Maybe what is needed is careful adjustments in LR, saved as a pre-set, and then applied to draw out the best of the IQ.

Maybe I am expecting too much, that is, raw processing may remain an 'art' and each image needs tweaking. That's not what I hear from the Hasselblad/Phocus people, or the C1 (though I can tell you, my P65+ has a damn mind of its own sometime :ROTFL:

Well, no easy solution, but I still contend that S2 files are likely very good, maybe even great sometimes, but it's like pulling teeth to see it

Victor

PS What I said about color was correct; an overcast day IS a bluish cast day. You get that 'ghostly blue' feeling. The French even call twilight "l'heure bleue'
of course this was oposite, AM

Maybe Leica has it right; an overcast image should convey overcast. To do a WB and make look like 5500 maybe is WRONG?

 

[Bob]

I can get "adequate to smashing" results without fiddling around with either Hassy or Phase.
But... adequate to smashing is not Optimal.
I don't know about S2, all the files I have have a disclaimer attached about preliminary this or that.
So I don't know what i have, but I can assure you that they are neither adequate nor smashing nor anywhere in between.
But this was before LR 3 and maybe the latest fw release, so I hold my tongue.
-bob

 

[gogopix]

Well, I think saying that all available S2 files do not reach the 'adequate' level could start at least a MILD discussion :ROTFL:
(Were you suggesting? hinting? just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, Bob.)

Anyway, maybe LR 3 and some profiles will help. What I would like is a straightforward way to get files like this from the S2... (FWIW, well critiqued, and actually well sold! )

Yes I made a few more tweaks for printing, but this P65+ file from C1 was pretty easy to get

Victor

 

[Mark Gowin]

I don't profess to be a color or image expert. However, I don't have to be an expert to compare two identical images taken by different cameras and choose which one I prefer - that is, if there is enough difference in the images to have a preference. Heck, I don't even have to know why I prefer on over another. My preferences in image quality may be very different than some else.

I spend a good bit of time looking at photos on the internet, books, and galleries because I enjoy it. The fact is there are many photos which I really like that are so far from technically perfect it wouldn't have mattered whether they were taken with a camera whose files were processed with a dedicated raw processor or medium format for that matter.

My point is that dedicated raw processors (or not) and optimal image quality is only part of the equation in a camera purchase decision. It doesn't matter how good the image quality of a camera is if you don't like it and won't use it. I chose the S2 because its ergonomics fit me perfectly and the comparisons I did just didn't show me the Phase or Hassy competitors were better. I concluded the S2 held its own IQ-wise (my opinion, maybe not yours). Plus, I expect the S2 processing to only get better as the system and raw converters mature. The Phase and Hassy cameras are less expensive than the S2, but I was willing to pay the difference to get the S2 ergonomics and user experience.

 

[Mark Gowin]

For discussion's sake, the following three S2 photos were processed in seconds in LR3. I used a preset on import and then made a couple final tweaks (crop in one and white balance another). These photos were taken last week when the Hot Rod Magazine Power Tour 2010 came through town. It was great.

 

[Mark Gowin]

Haha, I just noticed the three images I chose to post all have similar angles to them. That was unintentional and curious at the same time.

 

[glenerrolrd]

I think you answered your own question!

I selected a shot that needed a good raw processor to get the exposure, color, contrast etc. closer to what might be an interesting photo. I actually did "AUTO" for exposure and WB in LR... but no reference for Leica files. I assume with a profile/pre-set-magic sauce one would get a pretty good image to work with. I believe, in this file there is a pretty damn could file; IQ that is. But, well, we don't see it.

Bob's discussion, your comments etc all point to what is frustrating-a system that is not yet end to end complete.

Maybe this is the wrong rant. Maybe what is needed is careful adjustments in LR, saved as a pre-set, and then applied to draw out the best of the IQ.

Maybe I am expecting too much, that is, raw processing may remain an 'art' and each image needs tweaking. That's not what I hear from the Hasselblad/Phocus people, or the C1 (though I can tell you, my P65+ has a damn mind of its own sometime :ROTFL:

Well, no easy solution, but I still contend that S2 files are likely very good, maybe even great sometimes, but it's like pulling teeth to see it

Victor

PS What I said about color was correct; an overcast day IS a bluish cast day. You get that 'ghostly blue' feeling. The French even call twilight "l'heure bleue'
of course this was oposite, AM

Maybe Leica has it right; an overcast image should convey overcast. To do a WB and make look like 5500 maybe is WRONG?

Victor

Now I better understand. I work almost exclusively with LR . I never use auto tone or wb ever. I am surprised that if you used auto wb in Lr that it didn t warm up the image. I didn t realize this was common usage in say C1 and that you were happy with the results.

As I understand it from prior discussions that three elements come together in the raw developer (1) the algorithms that decode the raw file (e.g. LR new 2010 engine) (2) the profiles (Lr has dozens for say the Nikon files) that map the colors to a specific pallet ) and (3) the presets that define your settings for any setting in the development (tone curve ,sharpening,noise reduction etc). In a proprietary product all three of these can be tuned to the specific raw file ...thus out of box excellent results. I am sure I missed something but I believe this is close.

But knowing how Lr works how can you (1) not have a camera specific profile and (2) not use a preset that matches your files ?


I think your example shows that LR will not automatically correct the type of file you presented. It won t do that for any raw file at least as you described C1 working with a Phase raw file .

PS ....I ve been printing color since I was 15 and I certainly get the fact that the light was bluish. My point was that the color saturation would benefit from being warmer(unless its important to be accurate) . I do this visually but I would work the cab to neutral then back off to retain the mood of the rendering.

I only mentioned this because it has been repeatedly mentioned that it takes 10 minutes an image to get decent results. Someone tell me exactly what takes 10 minutes an image to optimize the image presented in LR .

 

[Shelby Lewis]

For discussion's sake, the following three S2 photos were processed in seconds in LR3. I used a preset on import and then made a couple final tweaks (crop in one and white balance another). These photos were taken last week when the Hot Rod Magazine Power Tour 2010 came through town. It was great.

Thanks for posting these Mark... there are things I love and don't love about these. I love your shots, for one thing...

The more I look at the S2 files, the more I tend to see two things... 1) a unique lens signature in line with high quality European optics (yay!)... and 2) a look (on the web) that has a "not quite acute enough SOOC, so I need to pre-sharpen more" quality about it. Much like DSLR files, only on steroids

(on the web... so take that for what it's worth)

I wonder if, given a lower price point, this camera would be a fantastic portrait camera. I could never afford it, unfortunately, so I don't even want to try it for fear of liking it too much for my type of work. We know it'll work for fashion... but given the slightly less "biting" rendering from the files, but with the nice optical signature... it gives my pause. Post work on MF files for simple portraits can get exhausting from the several samples I've fully worked with (I don't own an MF camera). Too much bite to begin with, but excellent color depth and malleability. Just speculation... but, maybe Leica wanted this camera to sit between the two worlds, and we're only now seeing that it's not meant to be a hassy or a phase competitor in strict MF terms. Maybe it's meant to be a MF-file-size-capable-DSLR with IQ on par with just about anything out there but with the edge slightly taken off the files to offer a bit more utility to the higher volume shooter.

Who knows... I'm just thinking out loud at this point in an attempt to make sense of a camera that I find very compelling and very puzzling at the same time! Mark, I think you do it justice with your samples (for web sized stuff!)

... even though I still don't know how good it really is due to my own lack of working through lots of files on my own.

(so, IOW, feel free to disregard my opinion... :ROTFL

 

[tjv]

Guy and Jack: Do you mind if I post one of your S2 DNG files from your review, converted in Lightroom 3 here? I'm looking at the file on screen and am pretty impressed with the look of it and detail and I've only done basic, 2 mins worth of editing. I'm wondering what others might think of my efforts considering the above comments about processing.

 

[GMB]

Guy and Jack: Do you mind if I post one of your S2 DNG files from your review, converted in Lightroom 3 here? I'm looking at the file on screen and am pretty impressed with the look of it and detail and I've only done basic, 2 mins worth of editing. I'm wondering what others might think of my efforts considering the above comments about processing.

I certainly would be interrested in seeing the result.

 

[gogopix]

I don't profess ...................................................................

I chose the S2 because its ergonomics fit me perfectly and the comparisons I did just didn't show me the Phase or Hassy competitors were better. I concluded the S2 held its own IQ-wise (my opinion, maybe not yours). Plus, I expect the S2 processing to only get better as the system and raw converters mature. The Phase and Hassy cameras are less expensive than the S2, but I was willing to pay the difference to get the S2 ergonomics and user experience.

Yes, that's the point; S2 ergonomics won't change, nor will Hassey or Contax or Phase Cam. As all systems move from good to excellent in IQ, it would seem to make the S2 a better investment than say a body that was clumsy in you hands, or where you had a question about the glass (FLAME WARNING e.g. will the S-K lenses with CS appear in your lifetime)

I am looking at my 4th rotator cuff surgery... ergonomics have ceased being a minor issue. Would I risk my shoulder for a better file....

... I think I'll take the 5th on that one :ROTFL:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy and Jack: Do you mind if I post one of your S2 DNG files from your review, converted in Lightroom 3 here? I'm looking at the file on screen and am pretty impressed with the look of it and detail and I've only done basic, 2 mins worth of editing. I'm wondering what others might think of my efforts considering the above comments about processing.

You bet and it maybe worth trying some Raws now with Raw developer as well. Some changes have been made in both programs since our review.

Also we went as neutral as possible since it was a test as to keep the comparison as normal as possible.

 

[gogopix]

well, LR 3 is certainly easy to make adjustments, but the workflow sort of $uck$. This was ill lit (overcast again, hey we are talking Ireland, the temperate 'rainforest' and what I am noticing is one of my frustrations with AF. I would have liked this scene WA closer in f11 and FOCUSED AT INFINITY.

There's a whole website that likes to debunk hyperfocal distance (not that AF systems understand that; they just grab the high contrast areas)

For land/sea or cityscapes it is better to have the distance in focus. The near end is hardly changed. Using the AF default or HF distance and you will get annoying OOF stuff (image #3)

But thisn't bad for 30 sec as tjv says...
If anyone wants to play with the raw, I will Yousendit

Victor

PS Not to jump on the critique bandwagon, but being restricted to 70mm is the pits. That is rapidly changing. The 35mm (28mm eq) is getting good reviews. Maybe there is a purpose in pushing for better processing - that is - there will be enough lenses to make the system interesting.
And no, I don't agree with Guy, whatever he said!! LOL

 

[fotografz]

Victor ... please send me that damned RAW file ... I'd like a crack at it in LR3 :ROTFL:

[email protected]

-Marc

 

[gogopix]

Yougotit
Can also be downloaded from:


https://www.yousendit.com/download/YWhNTkZuT2I5RlpjR0E9PQ

Regards and good luck
Victor

 

[dougpeterson]

[...]I would have liked this scene WA closer in f11 and FOCUSED AT INFINITY.

There's a whole website that likes to debunk hyperfocal distance (not that AF systems understand that; they just grab the high contrast areas)

For land/sea or cityscapes it is better to have the distance in focus. The near end is hardly changed. Using the AF default or HF distance and you will get annoying OOF stuff (image #3)[...]

HF markings on lenses are all hopeless for someone who wants as close to perfection as is possible. They are almost all marked towards a medium-high standard for use with FILM not 100% pixel peeping high-resolution digital files.

However doing your own testing for your lenses to establish an acceptable HF position will give you greater DOF with no loss in quality.

There is always SOME position on a lens (both in theory and in all my practice) which is closer than infinity which leaves infinity perfectly* sharp. It's often much closer to infinity than the lens marking implies.

*I use perfectly here in the practical-see-it-in-print sense and not mathmatical-theory ten digits of accuracy sense.

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
Personal Work

 

[gogopix]

Ok, just for grins, here's a P65+ that I just put thru the 30s LR drill
Raw is here

https://www.yousendit.com/download/YWhNTkZqMGNJMHZ2Wmc9PQ

 

[Mark Gowin]

Victor, do you by chance have similar photos taken with both the S2 and P65? I have only seen that comparison once in person.

 

[fotografz]

Here's my take in LR3 ... maybe my monitor's off or something ... but the original looked overexposed and flat to me.

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Was overexposed and flat.