S2 in the field: Jerusalem

[PeterA]

All these systems can deliver - it always boils down to workflow preferences and idiosyncratic personal preference. Leica has always made stuff that looks good and feels good in the hand - and I for one have always been prepared to pay for this.

However @ 40 megapixels we arent talking easy handholdability or with that fat glass fast autofocus - so yes maybe it is easier to use than the typical MF camera in snapshot mode - but you dont need 40 megapixels for snapshots.

At the right price point though - I'd be happy to be in an S2 instead of a MF camera and lens system - because neither replace a tech camera. The problem for me is that the S2 is no where near the price point which makes its positives a compelling value proposition.

If I had one - I am sure I'd use it MORE than my current systems for general walk around stuff - because it is easier to hold and use. But I have other systems - and the price point for an S2 doesnt make me want to switch ANY of my systems for one - thats the rub.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

"...and dynamic range is certainly less than the D3x."

Really?

Actually this comment does not surprise me. Going back to our review of the s2 we found the S2 clipped the highlights and shadows much sooner than the P 40 plus. Now we did not take it any further in tests on DR but that is what we noticed in c1 and LR. Obviously you can squeeze more out of both system through good raw processing as well. Now the D3x I never tested but we all have read about it in forums how good it is.anyway not scientific on our part but it was what we noticed and we where very accurate on the shooting side of the test.

 

[fotografz]

Actually this comment does not surprise me. Going back to our review of the s2 we found the S2 clipped the highlights and shadows much sooner than the P 40 plus. Now we did not take it any further in tests on DR but that is what we noticed in c1 and LR. Obviously you can squeeze more out of both system through good raw processing as well. Now the D3x I never tested but we all have read about it in forums how good it is.anyway not scientific on our part but it was what we noticed and we where very accurate on the shooting side of the test.

Well, it surprises me for sure, and doesn't match up at all with the tests I did using the S2 in South Florida's harsh noon lighting ... we shot the S2 side-by-side against a Canon 1DsMKIII and L lenses, and the S2 held DR much better than the Canon did. In fact, my buddy with the Canon has since joined the ranks of MFD shooters because of that experience. That is also not a scientific test, just an observation.

I know the Nikon D3X very well having used it heavily for wedding photography with the newer nano coated lenses. It's a nice camera, but no S2 in terms of IQ or DR. The D3X was also the hardest camera I've ever used in terms of post processing labor. This is one of the reasons I switched to Sony, which is one of the easiest cameras to achieve optimal results in post.

-Marc

 

[Corlan F.]

Well, it surprises me for sure, and doesn't match up at all with the tests I did using the S2 in South Florida's harsh noon lighting ... we shot the S2 side-by-side against a Canon 1DsMKIII and L lenses, and the S2 held DR much better than the Canon did. In fact, my buddy with the Canon has since joined the ranks of MFD shooters because of that experience. That is also not a scientific test, just an observation.

I know the Nikon D3X very well having used it heavily for wedding photography with the newer nano coated lenses. It's a nice camera, but no S2 in terms of IQ or DR. The D3X was also the hardest camera I've ever used in terms of post processing labor. This is one of the reasons I switched to Sony, which is one of the easiest cameras to achieve optimal results in post.

-Marc

You keep saying that Marc (the last part), but there are some people with an opposite experience -not shooting weddings though.
Which SW did you use with the D3X?

As said prior, i for one was extremely surprised to see that C1, which was best with D700/D3 files, did not yield satisfying output for the D3X raws in most cases... and that both NX2 and the recent LR/ACR updates sometimes were a better choice.

That said, DR performance on the D3X is certainly extremely good.
Just shy of the latest MFDB bodies. Quite easier to use, though.



.

 

[fotografz]

For me it is rather not the question how close the S2 is to top models of Phase and Hasselblad - because in my opinion IQ wise the S System has to improve to reach this quality (SW included of course), but more how close high end DSLRs are coming to the S2.

Interesting to see that Peter mentions a D3X already is same level if not printing larger than 1m. Now we can discuss about 0.8m or 1.2m, matter of fact is that I could upres successfully to almost double the size in PS without anybody noticing - maybe only in a direct comparison. So I expect the next generation of DSLRs - like a D4X - to be already same level as the S2 IQ wise, but given the huge sortiment of Nikkor lenses better AF and IS to just be the better solution.

CLear is also that if you really want THE SHOT, then nothing will top a tech cam and dedicated lenses (Schneider, Rodenstock) in combination with a high res digital back.

Just curious, since when is it just about megapixels? The S2 sensor is much larger than a 35mm DSLR can ever be (and still remain a 35mm DSLR).

I've used all current high meg 35mm DSLRs extensively: Canon 1DsMKIII, Nikon D3X, Sony A900, all with the best glass they offer ... no contest ... IQ from my old H3D-II/31 beat them all without working up a sweat ... let alone a more current 40 meg MFD rig. The difference between 24 meg and 31 meg would be negligible if confined to a 35mm frame ... factor in the difference in MFD sensor size and it is a whole other matter.

For sure the axiom "horses for courses" remains true ... certain applications call for a huge range of lenses, high ISOs, faster AF, and in some cases IS/VR/SSS stabilization.

However, that other old axiom also holds true: "Size matters".

I always think in terms of a flip side to upres'ing using a fractal based program ... with large sensor cameras one can crop a full res file extensively with far less consequences than a 35mm DSLR. In my work this happens far more frequently than upres'ing. When it does come to upsizing I'd much rather be working with 40meg from a larger sensor than 30 or 35 meg from a smaller sensor (which deosn't even exist yet).

So, I seriously doubt any 35mm DSLR will overcome sensor size anytime soon. The question is ... do you need it? In my case, I prefer it and given the choice of weapons (setting aside cost), I'd choose the S2 over any 35mm DSLR now or in the near future ... and do it in a NY heart beat

-Marc

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

we took the S2 with the three lenses to israel and did already a full day of shooting with it. yesterday we decided to leave the 70mm lens in the hotel....it was 34 centigrades in jerusalem.
we headed straight into the old city, which is not a generic MF territory: dark alleys, street photography type shooting, crowds of people etc. the S2 shooting experience was nevertheless reasonably good but certainly we would have been better off with the D3x (horses for courses). focus tracking a moving subject is close to impossible but if you happen to nail focus the result is really nice...see the attached pic and the 100% crop (courtesy andrea baczynski). 320iso is quite usable (some detail lost but still enough there), iso 640 is -for me- emergency only.
one minor issue: the camera strap provided by leica really rubs and hurts on the skin in hot weather. it is made of cheap material apparently.
the dilemma for travel photography is that if you take the S gear on a trip you will not have enogh room left to take the D3x/s gear too...
today off to the west bank with the S2...
all the gest, peter

It was actually 36 degrees that day, I'm also in Jerusalem at the moment and enjoying having AC!

Have to be honest, that 100% crop looks less sharp than my 5D can do with a prime..

 

[Jack]

Well, it surprises me for sure, and doesn't match up at all with the tests I did using the S2 in South Florida's harsh noon lighting ... we shot the S2 side-by-side against a Canon 1DsMKIII and L lenses, and the S2 held DR much better than the Canon did.

Marc,

My .02: The Canon was not in the same league as the S2 DR-wise, but as Guy said, we found the S2 definitely clipped highlights and shadows where the P40+ and P65+ did not -- at the time of our test, we guestimated about 1/4 stop on each end. We had several frames taken in early morning back-light of an old church. On the histos, we could see a bit of remaining head and foot room on the Phase files when the S2 clipped the tips at both ends.

The D3X is a different story. It has some proprietary internal highlight compression (and probably some shadow expansion as well) that seems to work quite well, giving it a total output DR similar to the MFDB's -- similar, but not identical in the way it appears. It's hard to put my finger on to explain, but if you can get a bright light D3X raw to look at, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Maybe David Kipper can send you one -- David?

PS: As I think you know, lack of DR is also one of the main reasons I sold my Canons.

 

[fotografz]

Marc,

My .02: The Canon was not in the same league as the S2 DR-wise, but as Guy said, we found the S2 definitely clipped highlights and shadows where the P40+ and P65+ did not -- at the time of our test, we guestimated about 1/3 stop on each end. We had several frames taken in early morning back-light of an old church. On the histos, we could see a bit of remaining head and foot room on the Phase files when the S2 clipped the tips at both ends.

The D3X is a different story. It has some proprietary internal highlight compression (and probably some shadow expansion as well) that seems to work quite well, giving it a total output DR similar to the MFDB's -- similar, but not identical in the way it appears. It's hard to put my finger on to explain, but if you can get a bright light D3X raw to look at, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Maybe David Kipper can send you one -- David?

PS: As I think you know, lack of DR is also one of the main reasons I sold my Canons.

Thanks Jack, I don't need a "bright light" D3X RAW shot ... I have 5,000+ of them on my wedding HD.

I agree regarding the Canon 1DsMKIII DR verse the Nikon D3X ... also one of the reasons I moved away from Canon.

As I said, the D3X is a nice camera, but when faced with 500 shots featuring a pure white dress with intricate white bead work or subtile embroidery , and a back tux of various materials, I didn't like the highlight compression (and shadow expansion?) decisions being made by the camera ... in far to many cases it flattened the contrast to much which led to more post work than I was willing to spend.

In fact, because of the laborious post experience I came to hate the Nikon no matter what settings I tried or which post program I used (if I had to use the snail like work-flow of NX I'd still be processing weddings from last year The Sony may or may not use internal compression, but the files right out of the camera beat the crap out of the D3X for my application with zero DR issues ... so I dumped the Nikon and never looked back. Less expensive too.

So, I'll take your word for it that the S2 DR isn't what it should be ... and that the P40+ and P65+ are better. I know for a fact that the H4D/40 DR is better than any 35mm DSLR I've ever used ... including the D3X and Sony.

I'll leave it to someone else to discuss the S2, but my limited use delivered nice results in bright light ... I just personally don't like the over-all feel of the files in challenging light, especially with the speed light ... and mostly that was because you can't get the ISO up in concert with dragging the shutter to open up backgrounds ... which I can easily do with the H4D/40 using its clean ISO 800.

I just shot 75% of a wedding available light with the H4D/40 ... yet another outdoor wedding ceremony at 12:30PM in the open sun and hardly a freaking cloud in the sky. Every single shot is fine ... amazing DR. No fill flash allowed, yet no blown dress, plenty of shadow detail, perfect skin tones. 300 shots in 4.5 hours all in challenging lighting. Post is a breeze. :thumbs:

Different strokes for different folks.

-Marc

 

[Corlan F.]

The Sony may or may not use internal compression, but the files right out of the camera beat the crap out of the D3X for my application with zero DR issues ... so I dumped the Nikon and never looked back. Less expensive too.

Interesting bold statement.

It's funny that you keep repeating that endlessly when you actualy dismiss the proprietary sw for "out of the camera".

Another funny thing: when i was on the edge for a new system last year, reading thoroughly various reviews and in particular your assesment (..."one and only"...) i initially opted for the Sony route. Less expensive for sure, and a unique 135mm prime. Then i looked at a hundred or so of your photos from both cameras, selected my fav on a technical basis, then only looked at the exifs. 8 out of 10 where with the D3X. Then i tested both cameras. And kept the Nikon and never looked back. So, you played an important part in my decision (but again, i don't shoot weddings).

That said if it'd make any sense business wise i'd love to get a H4D. Unfortunately it doesn't -not in the current economic state.

Guess that one will become the next "one and only" in very little time?



Getting back to the S2 DR performance, is it possible that this could evolve with FW updates and maybe profiles in RAW converters?

It's still a young camera... and not unilike the A900, as of today not really a system per se.

 

[markowich]

It was actually 36 degrees that day, I'm also in Jerusalem at the moment and enjoying having AC!

Have to be honest, that 100% crop looks less sharp than my 5D can do with a prime..

ben,
this issue could be the minimal depth of field of MF. i guarntee you, the S2 DNG sharpness beats the RAW D3x sharpness ...at the very precise point of focus.

peter

 

[markowich]

Thanks Jack, I don't need a "bright light" D3X RAW shot ... I have 5,000+ of them on my wedding HD.

I agree regarding the Canon 1DsMKIII DR verse the Nikon D3X ... also one of the reasons I moved away from Canon.

As I said, the D3X is a nice camera, but when faced with 500 shots featuring a pure white dress with intricate white bead work or subtile embroidery , and a back tux of various materials, I didn't like the highlight compression (and shadow expansion?) decisions being made by the camera ... in far to many cases it flattened the contrast to much which led to more post work than I was willing to spend.

In fact, because of the laborious post experience I came to hate the Nikon no matter what settings I tried or which post program I used (if I had to use the snail like work-flow of NX I'd still be processing weddings from last year The Sony may or may not use internal compression, but the files right out of the camera beat the crap out of the D3X for my application with zero DR issues ... so I dumped the Nikon and never looked back. Less expensive too.

So, I'll take your word for it that the S2 DR isn't what it should be ... and that the P40+ and P65+ are better. I know for a fact that the H4D/40 DR is better than any 35mm DSLR I've ever used ... including the D3X and Sony.

I'll leave it to someone else to discuss the S2, but my limited use delivered nice results in bright light ... I just personally don't like the over-all feel of the files in challenging light, especially with the speed light ... and mostly that was because you can't get the ISO up in concert with dragging the shutter to open up backgrounds ... which I can easily do with the H4D/40 using its clean ISO 800.

I just shot 75% of a wedding available light with the H4D/40 ... yet another outdoor wedding ceremony at 12:30PM in the open sun and hardly a freaking cloud in the sky. Every single shot is fine ... amazing DR. No fill flash allowed, yet no blown dress, plenty of shadow detail, perfect skin tones. 300 shots in 4.5 hours all in challenging lighting. Post is a breeze. :thumbs:

Different strokes for different folks.

-Marc

marc,
i stand by my judgement. D3x DR is at least 1/2 stop better than S2. and P65+ DR slightly beats D3x DR.
my only issue with D3x files is NC2, which is a pain. other than that it gives you very 'neutral' files and laeves PP decisions up to you. if i was a wedding photographer i would hate it but it is great for artists.
peter

 

[fotografz]

Interesting bold statement.

It's funny that you keep repeating that endlessly when you actualy dismiss the proprietary sw for "out of the camera".

Another funny thing: when i was on the edge for a new system last year, reading thoroughly various reviews and in particular your assesment (..."one and only"...) i initially opted for the Sony route. Less expensive for sure, and a unique 135mm prime. Then i looked at a hundred or so of your photos from both cameras, selected my fav on a technical basis, then only looked at the exifs. 8 out of 10 where with the D3X. Then i tested both cameras. And kept the Nikon and never looked back. So, you played an important part in my decision (but again, i don't shoot weddings).

That said if it'd make any sense business wise i'd love to get a H4D. Unfortunately it doesn't -not in the current economic state.

Guess that one will become the next "one and only" in very little time?



Getting back to the S2 DR performance, is it possible that this could evolve with FW updates and maybe profiles in RAW converters?

It's still a young camera... and not unilike the A900, as of today not really a system per se.

Well, in the words of Joan Crawford ... "this ain't my first Rodeo."

Proprietary Nikon software in this case is turtle slow for this application ... an application that I dump wedding images from a 35mm DSLR (now Sony), M9, my assistant's Canon 5D, and at times from the H camera, into one folder organized by time shot. "Horses for courses" is practiced at every wedding shoot.

Lightroom does the job faster for this application with very little compromises ... and using that, the Sony files take less post work than either the Canon or Nikon. This became crystal clear when shooting both the A900 and D3X at the same weddings, in the same light, while I was thinking of making the transition. A whole season of weddings that way: 20,000+ images. You do catch on to trends while crunching through 20,000+ images at 1,000 a crack :ROTFL:

So yeah, I'll keep saying that because that is what I found ... for me. I will say that the Nikon wasn't bad for B&W conversions which I have said before, even in the Sony forum here.

Where pray tell did you gain access to 100 of my photos? Even if you did, when was that? At any given time, a portfolio will reflect what I'm using then. In fact, a majority of my current portfolio and website stuff is done with a Hasselblad and Leica with some B&Ws from the Nikon and color from Sony.

Were it not for weddings I wouldn't even own a 35mm DSLR. For what I do use one for I don't need all the ancillary systems stuff ... I never shoot macro with a 35 mm, never do TS work with a 35mm, never use one in the studio, rarely use super-telephoto (and would rent one if I did).

How does this relate to the S2 subject? I had dearly hoped it would replace the 35mm DSLR ... and with more improvements, and a few more lenses, it still might.

-Marc

 

[Jack]

Thanks Jack, I don't need a "bright light" D3X RAW shot ... I have 5,000+ of them on my wedding HD.

DOH!

And,

but when faced with 500 shots featuring a pure white dress with intricate white bead work or subtile embroidery , and a back tux of various materials, I didn't like the highlight compression (and shadow expansion?) decisions being made by the camera ... in far to many cases it flattened the contrast to much which led to more post work than I was willing to spend.

Exactly my experience. It's where I hope the S2 comes to the forefront.

 

[Corlan F.]

Where pray tell did you gain access to 100 of my photos? Even if you did, when was that? At any given time, a portfolio will reflect what I'm using then. In fact, a majority of my current portfolio and website stuff is done with a Hasselblad and Leica with some B&Ws from the Nikon and color from Sony.

my answer would be OT, so -> PM

Were it not for weddings I wouldn't even own a 35mm DSLR. For what I do use one for I don't need all the ancillary systems stuff ... I never shoot macro with a 35 mm, never do TS work with a 35mm, never use one in the studio, rarely use super-telephoto (and would rent one if I did).

Yeah well, so would i. But for that you really need top MFDB gear (say, PO 40+ / H4D40 or better plus some of the last lenses)... not exactly cheap.

 

[ptomsu]

Interesting bold statement.

It's funny that you keep repeating that endlessly when you actualy dismiss the proprietary sw for "out of the camera".

Another funny thing: when i was on the edge for a new system last year, reading thoroughly various reviews and in particular your assesment (..."one and only"...) i initially opted for the Sony route. Less expensive for sure, and a unique 135mm prime. Then i looked at a hundred or so of your photos from both cameras, selected my fav on a technical basis, then only looked at the exifs. 8 out of 10 where with the D3X. Then i tested both cameras. And kept the Nikon and never looked back. So, you played an important part in my decision (but again, i don't shoot weddings).

That said if it'd make any sense business wise i'd love to get a H4D. Unfortunately it doesn't -not in the current economic state.

Guess that one will become the next "one and only" in very little time?



Getting back to the S2 DR performance, is it possible that this could evolve with FW updates and maybe profiles in RAW converters?

It's still a young camera... and not unilike the A900, as of today not really a system per se.

I made similar experiences with the A900. Switched over from Nikon (D3) to the A900 mainly because of high resolution and attractive price. I was never really happy with what came out of the camera, needed a lot of post processing to come close to the Nikon D3 standards, of course resolution was double.

Also the very much favored Zeiss lenses (which are actually made by Sony under Zeiss control - whatever that means) never fascinated me. They feel like cheap plastic and the optical qualities are for sure not better than their Nikon counterparts with Nano coating.

So finally nothing could hold me in the Sony camp (I was the bad guy then in the Sony threads of course :deadhorse and I switched back to Nikon some 5 months ago and am a very happy Nikon user again - although only with the D700 because for higher res I use my H3D39.

I already mentioned on a different thread that tastes are obviously VERY different and that I do not back at all the experiences and positives which Marc made with the A900. Not a bad camera, not a bad system, but IMHO not even close to Nikon.

Will the S2 improve? Good question, I think maybe, but it will take time and as long Leica fools around with non dedicated post processing SW success is pretty questionable. Also stated very often, had they gone with Phase One (C1 Pro) from the beginning for their S System, things would look TOTALLY different. Many of us raised that concern when it became obvious that they were no longer going with Phase for post processing. Actually this was a knock out criterium during my MF evaluation time for the S System. Well maybe in some years they will reach the same level as Phase or Hasselblad have today because of post processing, but then these 2 will be again further ahead. So actually they will never ever become top IMHO.

 

[ptomsu]

Well, in the words of Joan Crawford ... "this ain't my first Rodeo."

Proprietary Nikon software in this case is turtle slow for this application ... an application that I dump wedding images from a 35mm DSLR (now Sony), M9, my assistant's Canon 5D, and at times from the H camera, into one folder organized by time shot. "Horses for courses" is practiced at every wedding shoot.

Lightroom does the job faster for this application with very little compromises ... and using that, the Sony files take less post work than either the Canon or Nikon. This became crystal clear when shooting both the A900 and D3X at the same weddings, in the same light, while I was thinking of making the transition. A whole season of weddings that way: 20,000+ images. You do catch on to trends while crunching through 20,000+ images at 1,000 a crack :ROTFL:

So yeah, I'll keep saying that because that is what I found ... for me. I will say that the Nikon wasn't bad for B&W conversions which I have said before, even in the Sony forum here.

Where pray tell did you gain access to 100 of my photos? Even if you did, when was that? At any given time, a portfolio will reflect what I'm using then. In fact, a majority of my current portfolio and website stuff is done with a Hasselblad and Leica with some B&Ws from the Nikon and color from Sony.

Were it not for weddings I wouldn't even own a 35mm DSLR. For what I do use one for I don't need all the ancillary systems stuff ... I never shoot macro with a 35 mm, never do TS work with a 35mm, never use one in the studio, rarely use super-telephoto (and would rent one if I did).

How does this relate to the S2 subject? I had dearly hoped it would replace the 35mm DSLR ... and with more improvements, and a few more lenses, it still might.

-Marc

Well, if you use C1 Pro for post processing, then you can do all post in lightening speed - for Nikon as well as for Sony. And what even matters more - with absolutely industry leading results!

I never would use any Nikon with Nikon's SW nor any Alpha with any Sony SW. Lessons I learned long years ago and still are true!

Also I never understood why anyone would prefer LR 2 or 3 compared to C1 Pro, all important and necessary post processing can be done easily and perfect in C1 Pro. And if you need more then there is NO WAY around PS. It only can boil down to a matter of taste to prefer LR, but for sure not efficiency and quality.

Now you can argue I am not a pro, only semi pro, but I can tell you that even as a high end amateur I would ask more from post processing SW as most pros do, as I just have even less time for doing this work. So also this argument would not hit.

 

[fotografz]

Well, if you use C1 Pro for post processing, then you can do all post in lightening speed - for Nikon as well as for Sony. And what even matters more - with absolutely industry leading results!

I never would use any Nikon with Nikon's SW nor any Alpha with any Sony SW. Lessons I learned long years ago and still are true!

Also I never understood why anyone would prefer LR 2 or 3 compared to C1 Pro, all important and necessary post processing can be done easily and perfect in C1 Pro. And if you need more then there is NO WAY around PS. It only can boil down to a matter of taste to prefer LR, but for sure not efficiency and quality.

Now you can argue I am not a pro, only semi pro, but I can tell you that even as a high end amateur I would ask more from post processing SW as most pros do, as I just have even less time for doing this work. So also this argument would not hit.

Lightroom is simply the fastest software on the planet ...and that counts for some applications. With LR3 I do not need PS to do very many images anymore ... the tools in LR have become so comprehensive that there are things you can do there in seconds that take multiple steps in PS and you can't do at all in C1 or Phocus. You just have to use it enough to learn them.

I have the latest C1 Pro, and it's great when I have leisure time to process. I also use Phocus for more critical work, and of course all the tethered shooting. They are snails compared to LR3, and then require additional steps in PS for many refinements.

BTW, not one single comment, from one single client, regarding file quality ... including some pretty picky Art Directors.

Different strokes for different folks

-Marc

 

[ptomsu]

Marc,

you start to convince me to look again into LR - this time LR3

Hmmm - I was a convinced user of LR before I started with a C1 Pro 4.xyz version and I got so used to C1 Pro now. Maybe it is really worth to try LR3.

Peter

 

[Corlan F.]

I made similar experiences with the A900. Switched over from Nikon (D3) to the A900 mainly because of high resolution and attractive price. I was never really happy with what came out of the camera, needed a lot of post processing to come close to the Nikon D3 standards, of course resolution was double.

Also the very much favored Zeiss lenses (which are actually made by Sony under Zeiss control - whatever that means) never fascinated me. They feel like cheap plastic and the optical qualities are for sure not better than their Nikon counterparts with Nano coating.

So finally nothing could hold me in the Sony camp (I was the bad guy then in the Sony threads of course :deadhorse and I switched back to Nikon some 5 months ago and am a very happy Nikon user again - although only with the D700 because for higher res I use my H3D39.

I already mentioned on a different thread that tastes are obviously VERY different and that I do not back at all the experiences and positives which Marc made with the A900. Not a bad camera, not a bad system, but IMHO not even close to Nikon.

Will the S2 improve? Good question, I think maybe, but it will take time and as long Leica fools around with non dedicated post processing SW success is pretty questionable. Also stated very often, had they gone with Phase One (C1 Pro) from the beginning for their S System, things would look TOTALLY different. Many of us raised that concern when it became obvious that they were no longer going with Phase for post processing. Actually this was a knock out criterium during my MF evaluation time for the S System. Well maybe in some years they will reach the same level as Phase or Hasselblad have today because of post processing, but then these 2 will be again further ahead. So actually they will never ever become top IMHO.

Peter, it's interesting that you mention the D700 here because that's exactly the camera i was thinking about when talking about the possible evolution of the S2. The D700 performance has been dramatically improved with the FW update 1.02 esp in terms of colors and AWB (and even high ISO noise and DR IMO but there's a controversy about these last two criterias, some arguing -mainly- that if there was any improvements then Nikon would have communicated on them). Notwithstanding, it proves that a "excellent camera" can be significantly bettered via software revisions.

Re the PP SW, after comparing in-depth everything out there i was using C1 with the D700 which in most cases was clearly superior to the competitors (except NX2 for some specific files). Couple of things since then:

1/ to my surprise -and disappointment- C1 was not up to the task with the D3X. Some others with the same findings say, rightfully or not, that it has something to do with some non-commitment on PO side, "not providing the best curves for a potential 22MP commpetitor". Don't know it that's true or not, and don't really care. In the end what counts for us users is that we have to go back to other SW for NEFS, be it NX2 (with a good computer) or thankfully the new versions of ACR/LR which have improved a lot. And the same is true for D3 and D700 files, more and more users are going the LR3 route and results look extremely good. Much better than with LR2 or ACR 5.4-.

2/ funny thing is that in C1, many users (including myself) report that the best profiles for D700 (and D3) are the one from... D3X. Go figure.

3/ S2 vs. PO : there's apparently contradicting versions about what happened when at last minute Leica partnered with Adobe instead of C1 as it was originally planned. IIRC there's a whole thread about that issue somewhere on this very board. One didn't to go in bed with a direct competitor, one way or another. MHO is that's a profound mistake on both parts, seeing that it would have benefited everyone involved, including the users. Corporate policies decided otherwise. What's for sure is that there's probably a lot of headroom for improvement on the SW part of the S2, be it working on the FW, or on the RAW PP/curves.

In the meantime, and until it's a more of a complete system (lenses...), at least for the majority of users, Phase and Hasselblad sure have the upper hand with their latest models and their own great dedicated sw.

 

[fotografz]

Marc,

you start to convince me to look again into LR - this time LR3

Hmmm - I was a convinced user of LR before I started with a C1 Pro 4.xyz version and I got so used to C1 Pro now. Maybe it is really worth to try LR3.

Peter

Funny, I never wanted to take up learning LR at all ... it was my good friend Irakly Shandize that hounded me into doing it. Every time I argued that this or that couldn't be done, he'd show me that it could. The man is a wizard at post processing as well as being one of the best photographers I know.

http://www.shanidze.com/en/index.php

Hopefully, Adobe and Leica will get things sorted out, and then LR will be a better solution than it now is. It's early in the life of the S2, improvement is sure to come. Time will tell.

-Marc