Those examples are pretty pronounced, aren't they Peter.
For me, as a Lightroom user through and through, CA is something I've just lived with. It's a real pain in the butt but I've put up with it because I like the Lightroom workflow and interface. I'm sure if I spent the same kind of money as you have on an S2 I'd be paying WAY more attention to CA and artifacts than I do with my lowly D700 files.
I also use Lightroom to convert and edit DNG MF scans I make in Vuescan using a Nikon 9000. I suppose one of the big reasons I haven't already bought into a digital MF system is that I've never, ever, seen these kind of artifacts in film images I've made with any of my Mamiya 7 or Leica M gear. CA, purple fringing, what ever it may be, is one big thing that puts me off when comparing output differences between film and digital.
In this regard, I feel your pain. For some reason, I have a feeling that Leica is working with Adobe to improve the current situation. Call it intuition or reading between the lines of a few official interviews I've come across. Maybe their solution won't be as elegant as the competition, but I can't see them letting bad press continue. It's a young system and I'm sure the software side of things will improve.
I hear there have been three S2s sold in the last two months in New Zealand. This might not sound like much, but considering our wages are very low compared to the UK and US (here an S2 and 70mm lens costs approx $45K NZD, $10K over the average yearly wage,) our photo industry is tiny compared to Australia, and our population is barely over four million, it goes to show people are buying. This can only suggest a bright future.
Good luck with your new S2. I truly hope you have a better experience with this unit than your last. I look forward to hearing you talk about it candidly as you get to know it.
Screen grab here for you to see.
I forgot that on CA it can analyze the image and make those corrections needed. I just did it on a Canon file and worked a charm.
pic #1: Schneider 47XL (edge) at f5.6 with CA
pic #2: Schneider 47XL (edge) at f5.6 with CA filtered
pic #3: Contax 80mm at f2.0 with purple fringing
pic #4: Contax 80mm at f2.0 with purple fringing filtered
each corrected with 1 mouse click in a second (the CA for the 47XL with automated analyse by C1... I could also safe this as a preset if I'd like to).
those software corrections are a REAL time safer!
and basically they work very, very well...
btw: I've never seen such heavy purple fringing as shown in Peter's samples with any of my lenses... especially not with the Contax 35mm. Only occasinally some slight color edges that can be fixed in C1 without any trouble (i.e. trade off).
Geez this thread made me go back and look at a couple images . These raws are still up for folks to download. This is a grab shot at 2.8 with the 70mm and it is there for sure. I even did this in ACR and hit the recovery up to 43 percent trying to knock it down.
Or maybe a firmware issue...?
I'm quite sure that you could not fix such heavy purple fringing in C1... it's simply too bold for the algorithms C1 works with (IMO).
If C1 could handle this it would destroy other important color information as well... (just a guess...).
I have been accused as being an optimist on more than one occasion. So, I will share an optimist's point of view.
At a mere 6 months young, the S2 system is is coming along nicely with 3 lenses currently available and another soon to be available. The S2 has been performing excellent and has not had any generic problems or issues. Think about it. It is remarkable for a brand new camera designed and built from scratch (e. g., no legacy) to not have some sort of teething problems. The only complaints you see about the S2 are software related - no dedicated raw processor and slow tethering.
Contrary to popular opinion here, I think Leica's choice to provide Lightroom as their raw processor was brilliant. It has put them several years ahead of where they would be if they developed their own software. Let's face it, Capture One, Phocus, etc. didn't become as good as they are in just six months from first release. As it is today, Lightroom is excellent software which is only missing "special sauce" for the S2 (to quote Guy). I am confident Leica is working with Adobe to optimize LR for the S2 and I predict they will end up way ahead of the curve (time-wise) as compared to how long it has taken other manufactures to get to where they are now.
Although, fringing/CA has been identified as an issue in certain lighting conditions, exposures, and apertures it can be dealt with or avoided until the software side improves. The reality is that fringing/CA is not an issue for the majority of photographs. At least that is what I discovered after reviewing a couple thousand of my S2 photos. Maybe it has been dumb luck on my part or maybe it has more to do with what and how I photograph.
The best new of of all is that this thread has shown grown out of the typical S2 bashing and has become a reasonable discussion of an issue and how to deal with it. I bought an M8 the first week it was available and that was a camera with real issues at release. The online community pulled together and looked for ways to work around the issues. After some growing pains, the M8 ended up being a fantastic tool. It has taken 6 months, but I am finally starting to see that same community spirit for the S2. How is that for optimism?
Be that as it may... obviously the firm-/software side of the whole thing seems to be quite poor developped. Obviously...
Of course this only goes for the images I've seen online... so I might have a wrong impression...
True. C1 V5 has gone a long, long way. However 3.7.9 was a gold standard... then. But to be honest... it was also a long way to 3.7.9.Contrary to popular opinion here, I think Leica's choice to provide Lightroom as their raw processor was brilliant. (...)
Let's face it, Capture One, Phocus, etc. didn't become as good as they are in just six months from first release.
The question remains if LR with its underlying design will ever come close to C1 ...
So, just to eliminate one variable, has anyone tested whether CA varies depending on the camera's color space? I understand the S2 has at least one large-gamut color space; IIRC, Adobe LR uses ProPhotoRGB as it's default.
Many will say (and for good reason) that they just shoot in the largest capture space available and then convert to smaller ones as needed – that workflow is logical.
I honestly think it could be the microlenses on sensor combined with firmware. There's a reason Hasselblad has taken so long to release the H4D-60 - optimizing sensor performance in firmware / software. It's no small task, obviously!
in my review of the S2 I included a high-contrast shot which showed no CA. Used 70mm lens.
Need to stop in now with some facts WRT Raw converter and SW and Leica and Phase.
There were already discussions on top management level WRT C1 for Leica S2 some 3 years ago (this is the time I know for sure) but Leica was always offering C1 as the SW for their cameras - also M8 and DMR - remember? So it had made really sense, that they continue with C1 also for the S2.
Not sure what happened in these discussions on Mgmt level, but there were even thoughts that Leica would develop some lenses for Phase - maybe this was before Phase decided to go the Schneider path. Anyway, they seem not to have reached any conclusion about future cooperation and so they stopped. I think it was more Leica, who saw the Phase system more a competition to their S2. Remember, these were the times when Phase just started to have their own Phase camera by rebranding the Mamiya box.
End of the day we see now that this was the worse decision for the S System. We had endless discussions in other fora about that and Leica fanboys tended to have tons of arguments about how great Leica lenses are and there needs not to be any correction for that. This was even Leicas marketing pitch a year ago I remember from direct conversations.
Now we see the result
Best for Leica to go back to Phase and get up a new cooperation with them. There is no real competition there in my eyes as the 2 systems are so different anyway - at least for me.
There was a thread over at TOP recently where I stated that the S2 was fatally flawed because it had no dedicated software a la Phocus and C1. A Zalman Stern of Adobe gave a fascinating rebuttal which ended with:
"Leica has chosen to store images from their M, S, and X series cameras in a publicly documented, widely supported file format. This is truly in the best interest of photographers and a great feature of the products."
I wonder if this is the official line.
Here is the link to the thread: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...hotographer%29
OT - I just got an email from Phase:
Phase One is offering its flagship DF camera and P 65+ digital back
with an 80mm Schneider Leaf Shutter + two lenses of your choice for
You SAVE up to USD 8,000!
The offer ends on August 15th so don't wait too long...
The Schneider lenses are so good they're giving them away for free
I'm just kidding around because I love Schneider lenses...However, I do feel that a lot of this conversation in regards to DMF systems is a bit like the legend of how the the Byzantine theologians were arguing about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" as Constantinople was being breached by muslim invaders. I'm not a historian and don't know the accuracy of that story, but I think the comparison is relevant because today we're pixel peeping 40-60 megapixel super cameras at the same time that the commercial photography industry is essentially collapsing.
Last edited by Mike M; 9th July 2010 at 23:46. Reason: wrong word
i have to partly retract what i said before. i just did a couple of shots with the HD3II 50 with the 100mm f2.2 lens attached. again, extreme situations, but i wanted a fair comparism with the S2 shots, at least as far as the light situation is concerned. attached you find a 100% crop, taken at f2.2 and developed in....PHOCUS, with lens correction on. bad fringing....so what i originally claimed (no CA on H with PHOCUS) is false. you just have to look for it hard enough. my P65+ is not with me right now but now i am convinced that it would not do much better ...
1 Member(s) liked this post
My S2 test shots showing fringing above were done because I frequently face situations like this while shooting weddings ... which is where I had intended using the S2 to replace typical 35mm DSLRs. It was my "Playtex" strategy to "lift and separate" my output, and distance the IQ from all the herds of 35mm DSLR toting folks entering this business ... but retain DSLR like handling.
Very often scenes are backlit by bright widows at a wedding reception especially a bridal table, or I don't have an ideal time or place to shoot other shots, and am forced to shoot against the midday sun, or against specular laden water ... and purple fringing on a 100 shots is no fun dealing with ... trust me on that.
However, when testing a MFD camera we often torture test it to find its limitations. Naturally, there is an inclination to evaluate that performance against that of other systems. This is especially true when a manufacturer makes superior claims, or even mildly discounts the efforts of their competitors.
While no MFD system is perfect including the S2, neither are the conditions we often have to shoot in these days. I'd have zero concerns shooting any of the current MFD systems in the studio where I have 100% control of the lighting. All of these cameras love "Fat Light" and great professional technique.
Frankly, for the studio, or location work with full lighting control, using assistants/grips, and shooting tethered ... the S2 is at a disadvantage no matter how good the lenses are. I need the control that professional software provides ... as well as a professional camera.
The form factor of the S2 provides advantages in usage, handling and portability ... which was my initial attraction to this kit as a possible replacement for my 35mm DSLR kit. Yet, that type of usage often can place one in less than ideal control of the lighting circumstances. So we test for situations that we KNOW we will face whether we like it or not.
In short, the world of MFD has moved on to provide more versatile application of these expensive kits other than just in "ideal professional conditions". Guy uses his Phase One P40+ kit to the exclusion of any 35mm DSLR ... including for documentary photography. So do I with my Hasselblad H4D/40 (evaluated and bought after testing the S2). That is part of the evaluations we need to pontificate about, because we deal with it in the real world. The more versatile the system gets, the more we have to deal with less than ideal real-world applications.
I don't want to add negativity to this thread, but I didn't see any "facts" in your post. I think a more appropriate term would have been "speculation" and, in that case, you may not be too far off the mark in what you stated. The story I heard is that Leica realized it wouldn't make good business sense to provide Phase One (now a competitor) with a contact list of all of their S2 customers - which is what would have happened when S2 owners registered their copies of Capture One.
The reality is that none of this matters anymore. What is done is done. Now, we (S2 owners and potential owners) have to move on and hope Leica and Adobe are working closely together to optimize LR for the S2.
Guy, I don't think you would see CA from the S2 at f5.6 or f8 in those conditions either. At least, that is why I suspect I was only able to find a handful of S2 photos that showed CA out of couple thousand - I generally don't shoot wide open with bright light sources.
This is something I need to test just to know the limitations I have to deal with.
But seriously this one has me really nervous as I think this is a pretty excessive issue that is getting whitewashed a little. At this level we should not be seeing this. Just imagine if you will if this was a Canon issue with 100,000's of customers that are seeing this. The forums would be going nuts with complaints. Yes Leica fans are a tolerant group no doubt and even I am but this one has me scratching my head. I think this is deeper than software alone. I'm back to my system integration theory and something in the chain is not calibrated correctly. It seems all the lens they have out at least the 35, 70 that we know of, so this has thoughts of a sensor issue to me. But I will not downplay the dedicated software issue as well , it needs it to be competitive among others in it's class.
Mark as much as i am one of the biggest gear sluts around and I like the S2 style, I simply can't buy it and I am a sucker for being a guinea pig on this stuff. I'm really bugged by what I have been seeing . For S2 owners i feel for you guys as this should be knocking it out of the park. Yes it is good but it's leaving a grand slam on the bag. Maybe we can help figure out what is going on
I'm a little pissed my Drobo is NOT showing up on the desktop. have to get that going to find stuff
There were other reasons as well to the breakup of Leica and Phase One besides the conflict of interest on software registration. The claims from Phase One agents and dealers at Photokina (hours after the announcement of a strategic alliance) of deep involvement in developing the S2 camera system and Leica making lenses for Mamiya mount certainly didn't help build any goodwill. I was standing in Leica booth when Leica managers found out what was being said and stormed over to Phase One. The rest of the show, reps spent their time in interviews emphasizing that the S2 was designed and built 100% by Leica, without help from any partners. Talks with Adobe started about a month or two afterwards towards the end of 2008.
As you said, the past is the past. Let's look to the future.
Leica Store Miami
Just to add to David's comments . Leica engineer mentioned they maybe afraid Phase would screw around with the software to make the s2 not as good as they are competitors now. Obviously lot's of speculation here on all parties but I agree this is the past and it does not help the future of it
Don't get me wrong. I am not whitewashing the issue with the S2 and fringing/CA. I am trying hard to put it in perspective and clarify that in real-world use (versus testing) it only shows up in a very low percentage of photographs. It takes several factors to get the CA to become evident and most photographers simply don't get those factors to line up.
Take the example photo of the glass embedded in the wall posted earlier. I downloaded the DNG (thank you Guy for making it available) and tried to do a simple fix in LR3. I couldn't correct the image and started to get bummed out. Then I realized the image was shot at f2.8 in bright sunlight (1/3000 sec.). I would have never shot that scene at f2.8 if I had that much sunlight. I would have been stopped down to around f5.6 or f8 to get additional depth of field and still had plenty of shutter speed for a sharp hand-held photo. I would have stopped down to give myself some margin to compensate for body sway and not holding the camera perfectly parallel to the wall.
Take Marc's example of the plant with the door light behind it posted previously. I can't say for sure what f stop he used, but I bet the lens was wide open (f2.5) or very close to it. That scene is in the Don Cesar hotel in St. Pete Beach, Fl which is a beautiful hotel. I expect if Marc were shooting that scene for the hotel as a client he would have shot it much differently (e.g., portable lighting, smaller f stop for depth of field, etc.) and CA would not be present.
Testing cameras and lenses provides important information. However, it is important to keep this information in perspective as to how one expects to use the camera and lenses.
Guy, I looked at your wedding photograph again and think it represents my points above perfectly. For testing purposes you may have shot that scene without a flash and used a wider aperture to get the indoors subject properly exposed. This would have almost certainly shown CA due to the overexposed scene in the window. However, in real world practice you did it right and used a fill flash to better balance the light from outside to inside. The bride and groom are well exposed and the scene outside the window shows clouds and blue skies.
Absolutely I am very close to being balanced no question. I also agree not everything in life is shot wide open and in many many cases as a Pro I try to avoid the pitfalls when your in the trenches. Hell they are paying us for something right. LOL
Obviously though the allure of shooting wide open is there for the look too so we have to be careful. It's that bokeh thing as well and when you want than some real thinking needs to come into play. So this thread all still leads to a solution that needs to be found. As David mentioned leica said to use defringing but I kind of find exception to what Leica is saying as they are admitting a issue at hand in that comment. Obviously we can read that comment in several ways but bottom line they are admitting a fix for there files.
So as S2 customers become more abundant (let's hope for Leica's well being) you folks need to put the metal to the floor board and get them working on it this stuff as we all did with the M8. I know I was a big part of that but don't settle here, you guys paid dearly for this gear and you need to push them to the wall and make this better. I know some folks take me wrong as bashing and that is a shame because obviously they don't know Guy very well at all. I try to be the guy that is down there throats getting action on any system I have been involved with. So take my advice and get them on this. Many MF folks and we may not have the samples on hand or can actually prove this but I do agree with them yes we get some lens aberrations no question but again this looks excessive to us and I believe that is what this thread is all about is to inform and see something better from this. It just seems off
I think one thing we could all agree on is wide open is forgivable but after that questions come up. When we see it at 4.8 and maybe 5.6 than the hair on my neck stands up.
i just picked up a demo MP for an excellent price and will report next week on CA/fringing with various chemistry/sensor/combos.
will be fun at least.----)))))
It's all speculation and I don't want to wind things up, but come-on:
Phase's senior execs aren't idiots. They wouldn't have made the very public statements they made and end up making both they & Leica come across as idiots unless they felt those statements would be backed-up by Leica. They were obviously wrong, but someone got their signals seriously crossed at the 11th hr regarding just how deep a relationship was going exist. What, Phase was going to publicly coerce Leica into a joint deal at the press podium?
The preceding also explains why no custom software - until the 11th hr 59th minute, Solms didn't realize they needed any.
As for Phase poaching S2 owners via C1 registration? The folks in Solms need to get a little more creative when they make up excuses to 'leak'. Lets see, Phase sends registered S2 owners an email offering a special trade-in promo. Ah, uh, um (insert head scratch) so? I mean, I would hope to think Phase is more pro than and quite frankly if the camera is any good, 99.9% of folks will hit the 'delete' button anyway. Also if they felt it was a lemon, they'd be yelling at Solms to take it back vs crystalize a loss via a trade.
Either someone in Solms is drinking their paranoid juice -- or some SERIOUSLY (and I mean seriously) ill-will now exists between they and Phase. Again, my guess is that after the debacle at the S2 release someone at Phase uttered (in Danish) the equivalent of "you'll see #$%^ C1 support for the $%^& S2 when $%^&* Hell freezes over...". Shortly thereafter the excuses started and a call was made to Adobe.
As for Phase crippling S2 RAW support - flattering for LUF die-hards, but as another thread discussed - pppleeeaaase....If Phase gave enough of a da*n, and were that petty and immature in their desire to give Solms one in the jewels, they're be a lot of M8/9 owners out there right now wondering why their files look so lousy after their last C1 update. All Phase and Hassy have to do to show the merits of having custom software in MFDB land is nothing - Leica' use of LR and the threads like this one that result do more for THEIR marketing than any malicious attack or viral ad campaign they could launch.
Again, all water under the bridge, and I wish Leica the best, but I really do wish Solms would stop the silliness of leaking absurd excuses pointing fingers as to why they took the course they did. Either cowboy-up and admit they and Phase had a spat (no one needs the details) and you had to look elsewhere, shut up about it, or get a bit more creative and professional in their public and 'leaked' (or at best behind the scenes ill-advised) comments re: competitors and their products.
The BS with Phase re: the S2 program, public comments from senior engineers about 'wasting money' on software-based lens corrections, etc., etc., - just makes them look immature, exposes them to backlash-- and creates animosity between them and Hassy/Phase. Animosity that achieves nothing other than earn childish giggles from fanboys and create ill-will between them and Hassy/Phase. Ill will they may regret later. Let the S2 program stand on it's own merits and put a muzzle on the silliness.
Last edited by robmac; 10th July 2010 at 06:33.
Re the Phase/Leica debacle:
The reason as I heard it was simpler, and made far more sense from a historical POV: The nit that killed the deal was that Leica would have had to release to Phase all of their internal, proprietary image processing secrets for their raw protocol, and at the 11th hour, Leica management decided against this. If you look historically at the relationship between Leica and Panasonic on the smaller sensor cameras, we know this same mentality existed at Leica; the Leica versions of the small Panny cameras always seemed to produce slightly better images -- when pressed, Leica did admit the cameras were mechanically identical and it was their own internal secret sauce that delivered the superior images.
Now Leica is stuck with an open output format a-la DNG, but one where Adobe has their own internal secret-sauce components to muddy the waters... So now Leica has to implement their secret sauces BEFORE the data gets DNG'd, but in a fashion where the benefits will be present in the DNG that Adobe sees openly --- a non-trivial task I fear. I suspect given enough time that Leica will get it sorted, but how long will it take? And will the final solution be as elegant as it might have been had they opened up to Phase for CaptureOne? Personally, I doubt it...
Minute apart i made a picture with my M6 and elmarit 28mm 2.8, wide open, and kodak portreta negative film. Also purple fringing and some ca, but less.
With my D700 and leica glass, i get in extreme backlit cases ( or strong sun reflections) purple fringing, like sun reflecting via small waves on water surface. I use lightroom for my raw conversion and development.
I took these issues as a given based on extreme light conditions. With this thread i am getting more interested, and plan to look at those raws (and scan's) again and see if other developers like C1 and NX2 do a better job on this particular issue.
Note that in the nikon D3/24-70 images, i find CA issues present much stronger that in the case of leica glass.
P.S.: in one case, still under investigation, it looks like it is the LCD monitor i use (EIZO), with dark and strongly saturated blue/purple color, it appears the LCD monitor is causing what looks like CA.
To summarise, despite the D700 filters in front of its sensor there are issues, purple fringing does also occur when using film. So if a particular body(electronics,firmware)/lens/raw developer does not show these issues, it would be very interesting to find out why!
As per Jack's comments...
While God knows CEOs have egos and not all are as mature as people would like to believe, think in terms of logical cold-hearted business reasons: a) why a deal might make sense, b) why it could unravel and c) what would happen and how both players would react if it was unwound at the 11th hr and the 'unwinding' turned into a (very public) dog's breakfast.
yes and as OP on this, I should state that the CA we are talking about primarily here, besides 'purple fringing' is 'Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration', which can be found in many fast lenses, but Leica S2 70mm is a particularly egregious example when wide open, and no software correction is supplied.
see towards the bottom of this review for examples on an otherwise very good Nikon lens: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._n15/page4.asp
mind you this is at f1.4 rather than f2.5, and costs $410 not $4500...
suitable taped up it looks like an ordinary SLR, not a super-pro one, so there's a lot you can do with this that you cant with a 'Blad or Phase.
ymmv of course. I own Phase, but would buy an S2 also if they could give me good results at wider apertures. sadly they can't - and thats the point of this thread.
There are no <f2.8 lenses with better correction than the S-lenses (besides fast teles like the Apo-Summicron 180) I'm aware of. So when you're not happy with these results, you'll have to stop down, period.
David has some nice 100% off-axis crops @f2.5:
Normally, even 100% crops from 35mm-12MP-cams + >>1k$ lenses aren't this sharp and lack aberrations to this extend.
Mainly Zeiss introduced some major breakthroughs in medium format-lens-design 20-50 years ago - besides Leica and Rodenstock/Schneider- for technical cameras (I agree, these lenses are magnificent and better than the S-lenses @f2.5, but slow and not usable for SLRs) no one cared about investing any money or know-how to introduce significant improvements since then.
Hasselblad ordered new designs but instead of improving old Zeiss-designs, they ordered mostly similar performing designs from Fuji and added software correction as the "one and only"-solution, then they started to introduce lenses which are not even usable on bodies introduced a few years ago to a new system - just to sell more new bodies! Now they introduce a back which cannot be used meaningful (no, I don't buy a 60MP-back instead of the 50MP to use a crop) with these lenses just introduced and still call it a modular system! That's what I was trying to say. Of course, a 3k$ Fuji-lens will perform reasonable under most circumstances anyway.
Maybe Leica needs some serious talk with Adobe for adapting LR3 - but choosing the difficult and expensive way to create new lenses (besides the new form-factor of the body itself) shouldn't be ignored. It's not some magical system which outperforms larger (and more expensive) 60MP-designs or makes every aberration magically disappear, but it offers outstanding performance in a quite ergonomic, small form-factor - not to make classic MFDBs superfluous but to add something to the market that wasn't there before.
OK, will do, swamped right now
I could not agree more - lets look at the future and see what will happen.
Nevertheless for the time being, I find my needs 100% covered by Hasselblad, the H system, Phocus and the genial HTS 1.5 which I am using with my 28 HCD for landscape panoramas. This in combination with PS is just delivers the result right out of the box with minimal corrections in post processing. Really happy about that!
Would love to see Leica to come close to this level with their S System and whatever SW combination for post processing.
fully agree! And as you mention, C1 would have been the logical choice. Well today they could even knock on Hasselblad doors for Phocus, which (as you all know I am a Hasselblad shooter) in my opinion has the even superior processing SW WRT IQ. Just my view of course. And yes - I know that this is all daydreaming.
Wish Leica all the best for fixing their issues with the S System.
(b) "you'll have to stop down, period" is not an answer. Good lens design couple with software solutions make my Phase 80mm-D lens very usable at wide apertures with much less CA that the Leica S system shows. So - you don't "have to stop down", but rather, you have to avoid a Leica S camera, for big aperture shooting, sadly.
I shoot wedding in venues like that all of the time, which made the Don Cesar test scenario very relevant for me. If I were shooting for the hotel as a place of business, it would be a whole different scenario ... off-camera lighting/softboxes, camera on-tripod, optimal f-stops, assistants lugging stuff, etc ... (and now most likely a H4D with a HTS for PC control and stitched Panoramic images).
But at weddings in a beautiful venue like that, people are the subject ... and they are moving. It's usually hectic and unpredictable. Often no time for setting up lights ... use of diffused on-camera fill coupled with dragging the shutter and wide open apertures is the rule, not the exception (when shooting inside). This is even more critical when you consider that the S2 isn't all that great at higher ISO's.
Personally, my hope is that the S2 will get there, and improve to the point that I'll take another look at it for what I shoot ... in the real world.