A must read comparison

[KurtKamka]

There was no financial issues, otherwise they wouldn't produced the S2 !
It would have cost far less to produce a 10 !
No it was a missed management which in return can raise up financial issues now. The sales of the M9 are done and the S2 looks like a flop, hard times ahead probably.

From all that I've seen, the supply of M9s has just recently caught up with demand. Also, the anecdotal information I've heard on the S2 also runs contrary to what you've heard. I've heard that the S2 has sold very well with the caveat that Leica could've probably sold a few more S2 lenses should they have been available.

 

[Bob]

ON NOES!
Lets not turn this into another S2/R10/Leica/shoulda woulda coulda thread.
We have enough of them already.
-bob

 

[David Schneider]

David,
As an ex 5D Mark II owner I disagree.
The step from 5D to mark II was an improvement, but the trade off in the 5DII produced images that had smeary color at almost all isos which grew worse with increasing sensitivity. ok, sure it allowed you to get something but at the loss of several bits of image information depth and increases in banding. Of course if what you shoot is all about low light, then it is a must for you, but for what I shoot ISO above 800 was unusable.
-bob

Bob,

My experience is different. I went to 5dmk2 from 5d in the middle of my senior session and I didn't see loss of info or banding, but I don't claim to be an expert in that kind of thing. I just compare what I've done with one camera to what I'm doing with another camera.

I'm not sure my H3d2-39 at 800iso is better than my old Canon 20D. Certainly not better than my old 5d. I'll have to do a comparison during my winter slow season.

 

[xpixel]

MODERATOR PLEADS
Lets not turn this into yet another S2 thread

The sales of the M9 are done and the S2 looks like a flop, hard times ahead probably.

Sorry but they have already sold a 4 figure number of S2 already... and this is a flop ?...

 

[Bob]

Bob,

My experience is different. I went to 5dmk2 from 5d in the middle of my senior session and I didn't see loss of info or banding, but I don't claim to be an expert in that kind of thing. I just compare what I've done with one camera to what I'm doing with another camera.

I'm not sure my H3d2-39 at 800iso is better than my old Canon 20D. Certainly not better than my old 5d. I'll have to do a comparison during my winter slow season.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear.
I was not referring to the 5D to 5DII transition, what I was meaning to say is that with the 5DII (for example) at the higher range of iso settings (and to a lesser degree the lower although it is still present) one can see a considerable amount of color smearing. This is one of the tricks of the trade that engineers do to improve the apparent high iso performance of the camera. The trade-off is that if they had not done that, and it is a deliberate choice, then the over-all look of the images would have been better but the high iso specsmanship would have been harder to assert.
Think about the physics for a moment, the photon flux at the sensor limits the potential signal to noise ratio based on the number of levels of quantization desired, the size of the pixel, the exposure/sampling time, the well saturation limit, and the quantum efficiency of the sensor. Quantum efficiency of back lit sensors can approach 90% but is more typically about 70% and front lit sensors are about 20%. A 20% Qe sensor effectively throws away 80% of the light falling on it. When sensors are "pushed" they really don't get more sensitive, they merely crank in more amplification (a combination of digital by shifting and analog by increasing gain). The base sensitivity is determined by the flux density and the number of photons necessary to saturate the sensor cell. So as you peer at your images, looking for the evidence of noise, just do it with the knowledge that each time iso sensitivity is doubled, you lose a bit of quantization level. A 100 iso base sensor that produces 12 "real" bits of information that is pushed to iso 16400 has only 6 bits left. The result is banding, maybe you don't see it because noise tends to obscure it, but it is there and can be measured.
-bob

 

[jotloob]

Think about the physics for a moment, the photon flux at the sensor limits the potential signal to noise ratio based on the number of levels of quantization desired, the size of the pixel, the exposure/sampling time, teh well saturation limit, and the quantum efficiency of the sensor. Quantum efficiency of back lit sensors can approach 90% but is more typically about 70% and front lit sensors are about 20%. A 20% Qe sensor effectively throws away 80% of the light falling on it. When sensors are "pushed" they really don't get more sensitive, they merely crank in more amplification (a combination of digital by shifting and analog by increasing gain). The base sensitivity is determined by the flux density and the number of photons necessary to saturate the sensor cell. So as you peer at your images, looking for the evidence of noise, just do it with the knowledge that each time iso sensitivity is doubled, you lose a bit of quantization level. A 100 iso base sensor that produces 12 "real" bits of information that is pushed to iso 16400 has only 6 bits left. The result is banding, maybe you don't see it because noise tends to obscure it, but it is there and can be measured.
-bob

Thank you Bob .
Very interesting and I never thought about these details .:thumbs:
One never stops learning .

 

[jonoslack]

The sales of the M9 are done and the S2 looks like a flop, hard times ahead probably.

:ROTFL:
the cup has almost nothing in it at all! (well, 3/4 is as good as none).

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I can't speak for M9 camera sales, but I can say that ANY of the Summilux M lenses are very hard to find new - production is not keeping up with demand.

If this is a flop, bring it on!

Bill

 

[GrahamWelland]

Regarding Leica, to quote Mark Twain, "The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated"

Actually, I think that applies to Pentax too.