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!

Phase One LS vs Leica S glass comparisons

Anders_HK

Member
I am currently a reasonably long term Phase One/Mamiya AFD/DF shooter using various P+, Aptus and now IQ backs.
Did you consider Rolleiflex Hy6 and upgrading to Leaf AFi-II 12 ?

Arguably the Hy6 is the most modern MF camera out there and to top German perfection. I am an advanced amateur as well, having dropped AFD/AFDIII system with a list of lenses for Hy6 w/ AFi-II 12. There is no comparison between the systems to me. It is not about having latest gear to me, but simply a tool that is extension of mind to my photographic eye and delivers with simplicity, reliability and high quality. I love the 6x6 waist lever finder, ergonomics, balance and simplicity. Sure, certain Mamiya lenses can be just as sharp, e.g. the 45mm D that is perfect sharp across the frame, but when comes to characters my Xenotar 80/2.8 AFD PQ and Distagon 50 FLE beats ANY of Mamiya's I have owned and are sheer magic in renderig, and no less sharp. Not only that the Rollei's are also known by names same as Hassy for us to know what type of lens they are and what character they will bring...

Add to that the 80MP Leaf which I like not first most for the pixels (although I do like those too), but for its better colors, finer gradation, DR and frank making me stop slides (which rendering I loved, Velvia). And, unlike Aptus-II it comes without iPhone interface but in more modern Leaf housing with tilt screen and rotating sensor that are darn perfect with the Hy6.

To me it is about photography, and a tool enabling to see and visualize the image through the camera. This is one of most impressive tools for photography I have owned.

Thanks Leaf + DHW :salute:

Best Regards,
Anders
 

MFCurious

New member
Anders,

Thank you for the reminder about the HY6/Leaf solution. I've looked at this system for a long time but basically it seems to have little or no vendor support these days. (In the US at least). I think that technically it is probably superior to the DF system and the Zeiss/Schneider glass has always looked to be outstanding, again no doubt with it's own character. If it were a current system then I could consider it but you almost never see gear for sale or anyone other than DHW supporting it.

The AFI based backs seem to have the best of all worlds too - eg. the articulated screen & rotating sensor support being two of the really nice options with that platform.
 

dfarkas

Workshop Member
I guess so.
<summary>
Hey the stuff I sell has more cowbell than that other junk.
</summary>

go shoot it then take your pick
Bob,

I never once drew any conclusion about any competitive product. I was merely exploring the factors that can effect optical performance of lenses. Yes, the S lenses excel on these metrics, but I'm sure other lenses from other manufactures do as well.

Since the OP was asking about performance characteristics of S lenses, I think this is pretty relevant and on-topic.

Also, respectfully, I have to disagree that lenses don't contribute to image detail, apparent depth or color. Yes, image processing algorithms can be applied to adjust characteristics to taste, but you will always be better off starting with as good an original image as possible. If lenses didn't matter, we'd all be shooting with pinhole cameras or coke-bottle lenses. :)

David
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Dear Mr, Farkas.
1) you are persistently changing the subject. The issue was color depth. It is measured by the signal to noise ratio of the least significant bit.
2) It has nothing to do with lenses.
3) Do not argue with a scientist who also happens to be a moderator unless you have facts and not opinion or perhaps desire to spend some time in the penalty box.
4) Folks have been trying to define better for years and have mostly ended up confused
have a nice day
-bob
 

MFCurious

New member
Bob,

I never once drew any conclusion about any competitive product. I was merely exploring the factors that can effect optical performance of lenses. Yes, the S lenses excel on these metrics, but I'm sure other lenses from other manufactures do as well.

Since the OP was asking about performance characteristics of S lenses, I think this is pretty relevant and on-topic.
David,

Well I certainly appreciated your input on the S lens characteristics.

I'll ping you as follow up when it makes sense to set up a demo/rental trial. I'm still mulling over options right now but maybe in the new year.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
David,

Well I certainly appreciated your input on the S lens characteristics.

I'll ping you as follow up when it makes sense to set up a demo/rental trial. I'm still mulling over options right now but maybe in the new year.
THAT makes sense.
Try one, try several, but do try them out.
-bob
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Dear Mr, Farkas.
1) you are persistently changing the subject. The issue was color depth. It is measured by the signal to noise ratio of the least significant bit.
2) It has nothing to do with lenses.
3) Do not argue with a scientist who also happens to be a moderator unless you have facts and not opinion or perhaps desire to spend some time in the penalty box.
4) Folks have been trying to define better for years and have mostly ended up confused
have a nice day
-bob
Bob

In the interest in not being confused...maybe you could explain what I am seeing. Lets eliminate the debate Leica verse other vendors and focus on the issue of does the glass affect color....because I would draw from your comments that glass does t affect the IQ color .

Lets say I use a Leica R lens on a Nikon or Canon body . If I compare the file with a similar Nikon or Canon lens ...I see a significant difference . Its more than resolution and micro contrast ...the color transmission is cleaner with the leica glass. The blues and greens look deeper and more saturated . Same as we found when it was film and there were no differences in he cameras .

If I understand your explanation ...glass does not affect color saturation (or what we might incorrectly perceive as color saturation). Are we confusing contrast with saturation.

I ask because this just doesn t reconcile with my experience with the Leica glass....I often choose my lenses based on the contrast of the light and expectation of how color will be rendered .

I see a significant difference when I look at a Noctilux 0.95 verse a pre asph summilux shooting both at 5.6 where the bokeh will not confuse the issue. And I am speaking of the saturation and clarity of the color.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
If I may jump in: "Color Depth" is a technical term referring to a measurable quantity and has nothing to do with saturation, or, indeed, quality. It is a function of the sensor/software, and could only be limited by the glass in the most extreme situations (I'm making a guess on this last point, but it's probably accurate).

Unfortunately, "depth" is also a word used to describe image quality, and so there is frequent confusion when the words "color" and "depth" get too close together in a sentence.

--Matt
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I know that when I've used lenses from Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander etc on the same camera platform (and film before that), there definitely were rendering differences as far as colour was concerned, plus also contrast or at least perceived contrast. All things being equal at the sensor, some glass renders warmer or cooler or so on and not just based on the vendor but also the particular lenses as mentioned.

I'm sure that David's Leica descriptions were more along the lines of how the glass rendered vs perhaps a more scientifically accurate description or aspect of the imaging pipeline.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
is it benefitial to discuss definitions of words? does anybody doubt that the lens has influence on color,contrast,sharpness, detail of/in the final image? I would assume thats what the OP is interested in.
 

Aaron

New member
Dear Mr, Farkas.
1) you are persistently changing the subject. The issue was color depth. It is measured by the signal to noise ratio of the least significant bit.
2) It has nothing to do with lenses.
3) Do not argue with a scientist who also happens to be a moderator unless you have facts and not opinion or perhaps desire to spend some time in the penalty box.
4) Folks have been trying to define better for years and have mostly ended up confused
have a nice day
-bob
(1) "Colour depth" has been used to describe a characteristic of a lens way back in the film days before the concept of digital existed. I think most people reading "Mr.Farkas" comments will have understood that.

(2) In your oipinion:)

(3) Tha sounds more like a statment that would be made by a Dictator rather than a Moderator.:D

(4) Some

But Seriously, "Mr.Farkas" contribution seemed to be on topic and revelant to the question asked by the op. I learned something from it.:angel:
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
If I may jump in: "Color Depth" is a technical term referring to a measurable quantity and has nothing to do with saturation, or, indeed, quality. It is a function of the sensor/software, and could only be limited by the glass in the most extreme situations (I'm making a guess on this last point, but it's probably accurate).

Unfortunately, "depth" is also a word used to describe image quality, and so there is frequent confusion when the words "color" and "depth" get too close together in a sentence.

--Matt
Matt thank you ..that makes sense to me .

Bob are you taking position that the glass doesn t matter when looking a color ... I know we are talking on the margin. I completely agree that most photographers in a blind test would have a hard time distinguishing IQ differences at even large print sizes. However I use most of the available Leica glass and I ve never been able to make a leica 50 pre asph look as good as the leica 50 asph . On the M8 they rendered differently but they were very close when stopped down but on the M9 the differences are greater . It was one of the first things I noticed on the M9 ...some of my old formulas just were not reaching the potential of the larger sensor .

This seems to be a worthwhile discussion because it hits right on the relative importance of our investment in lenses .
 

doug

Well-known member
wrong mostly. The lens has nothing to do with the color depth
I suspect that the technically accurate definition of color depth isn't the same as the meaning among the general population.

... To quote Peter Karbe, head of optics at Leica (and designer of the famed 50 Lux ASPH), "The S lenses are the best lenses we have ever made... for any system... ever."
As a huge fan of the R APO lenses, Karbe's comment means a LOT to me.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
OK, here is my entry for a constructive comparison for LS lenses.
No post processing, just minor white balance and adjustments for highlights.
This was taken this afternoon in natural light with the 110mm LS lens.
It was taken at 1/13 sec at f/8 which is common with many of my natural light shots.

OK. Lets see the comparison shot.
To be fair, you have to demonstrate how much superior that a particular lens will make a similar shot appear an show why the difference was attributed to the lens.
-bob
 
Last edited:

Anders_HK

Member
Anders,

Thank you for the reminder about the HY6/Leaf solution. I've looked at this system for a long time but basically it seems to have little or no vendor support these days. (In the US at least). I think that technically it is probably superior to the DF system and the Zeiss/Schneider glass has always looked to be outstanding, again no doubt with it's own character. If it were a current system then I could consider it but you almost never see gear for sale or anyone other than DHW supporting it.

The AFI based backs seem to have the best of all worlds too - eg. the articulated screen & rotating sensor support being two of the really nice options with that platform.
I thought Hy6 is now brought to States, also from Leaf in Israel, to select dealers?

I am fortunate that in Hong Kong there is a distributor with support. I am told they sell well to Mainland China market. Also DHW support with a phone call away to top staff.

The Hy6 is definite a current system, albeit assumably refabrication of old new stock. Phase One / Leaf however apparent owns rights to further development... The danger is that P1 might think there is more $$ to make on developing the Mamiya system which frank is inferior, also in lenses. Seems money control, not best system. Also for P1. The Rolleiflex Schneider 80.2.8 Xenotar PQS AFD is the most amazing lens I owned; super sharp, wonderful out of focus and at certain focus distance, aperture and background combination can appear to swirl as a petzval.

I can also say I had countless problems with Mamiya system which I found insufficient precise (e.g. precision and focusing confirm). Sure, was told that DF would be more precise... and then what? Upgrade again and again??? The Hy6 was more $ but is solid, very precise also for 80MP, and feels far more durable... MAC Group in USA may give good support. Over here it has had to be sent to Japan, which took long time and half of times wrongfully blamed the customer. I would have preferred quick and to point support with honesty and frankness. Thus my confidence is nil for Mamiya.

The S2 has a Kodak sensor and not latest generation compared to new 80MP from Leaf/P1. That makes difference. Else I the Leica lenses must be assumed superior to Mamiya. The new Phamiya Schneider? Did not have one, but why try remake made in Germany by mounting new developed lens designs using German glass, mounted and lens made in Japan? Having owned many camera systems I now opinion that there is nothing like quality German glass.

Best regards,
Anders
 
Last edited:

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I suspect that the technically accurate definition of color depth isn't the same as the meaning among the general population.
I really don't know. Color depth is the number of colors possible, not the channel gain.
If they mean saturation, then it is a trivial task to adjust the saturation of any image to be more or less even though the color depth might be the same.
Saturation is the color gain per channel. Vibrance is similar with reduced behavior for colors surrounding skin tones.
Some cameras come "out of the box" with their default jpeg or raw processors more saturated than others. This is usually by design. We studies the "target" over-saturation of images for Kodak in the late 1960s. No film or digicam that I know of is "accurate" because the general population thinks that colors that are over-saturated are more "natural" then those that are accurate. Phase, Leica, Canon, Nikon, all that I have seen so far follow this pattern. Our color memory is a very strange thing. Most of the population remembers a color to be more saturated than it really was and by a significant degree. I am amused by looking at Lightroom (acr) profiles of various cameras to see just how much more boost and to which colors are actually done. Lets say that each camera has its "secret sauce" that is used to generate its signature look. Yes, by the way this is often true with cameras made of the same sensors and the same lenses.
When the same sensor is compared with different lenses then what appears to be differences in saturation is actually differences in veiling flair. This is the same flair that constitute the "glow" present in some fairly famous lens designs.
Yes, a lens can reduce contrast and saturation but they can all be restored to a large degree.
There is a perceived break-point and that is when a lens resolves 50% or better at a lines per mm equal to the sensor cells per mm. What is the optimal resolution that can be resolved by the sensor. Any more is shall we say more than a handful. Signal theory actually predicts that a double sample per cycle is required to restore the sinusoid. That is . . . oh look two sensor cells per line pair!
Most all decent lenses today do this and better, not that it matters, at least in the center of the image. What we now look at as lens character is the sum of its aberrations particularly in the periphery. Some look good and some look pretty bad.
Lots more to it but bottom line, find the lens that does what you want it to do along with the system that delivers it for you.
-bob
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I thought Hy6 is now brought to States, also from Leaf in Israel, to select dealers?
Hy6 is still supported by a few of us. It takes a dealer with historical experience and a high degree of specialty, as in the best case it's not enough volume for most dealers to pay attention. Steve Hendrix does the heavy lifting of carrying this torch for us (Capture Integration).
 

fotografz

Well-known member
(apologies for the cross post but there's a MF digital/Leica forum split here)

I am currently a reasonably long term Phase One/Mamiya AFD/DF shooter using various P+, Aptus and now IQ backs. I'm strictly amateur although I'd like to consider myself quality driven as far as my imaging is concerned. Which all leads me to the following:

Over time I've become increasingly frustrated with the DF system and have been considering a change. I do like the Schneider glass although I've grown to loathe certain aspects of the DF system such as occasional unreliability and overal system integration. This has made me curious about the S2 system, especially now that Leica actually have a reasonable spread of usable focal lengths available (ok, in theory at least!).

I'm pretty au fait with the S2 camera system capabilities but I was wondering if anyone has qualitatively compared the Phase LS 55/80/110/150 against the equivalent S lenses?

Now I realize that if I ask this question on the Leica forum that I'll get the Leica bias and likewise here probably the Phase One (or Hassy) bias but I'm curious if anyone has compared these objectively or could comment or point me to any previous comparisons.

In due course I'll arrange a rental/demo but in the meantime any feedback from phase one / S2 users who've maybe made this switch or comparison would be welcomed.

Thanks in advance.
Well, after all the posts has anyone answered the original question? Has anyone with experience with the Schneider M mount lenses done a direct comparison with the S2 lenses, and then switched? That is a tough question since swapping MFD systems is a very traumatic undertaking, and the shooting style element of anyone who did swap would also be a mitigating factor anyway ... not to mention that each of us sees differently.

By extension, each of us has an impression of how a lens contributes to the over-all imaging chain on the way to the final result. IMO, it really doesn't matter what descriptive terms we use, we know what we're looking for ... it's the difference between using words to convey what we like, and simply seeing what we like ... I personally don't care what the science is behind it as much as others may ... I only care whether it looks the way I want it to.

In my trek there were lenses that became iconic to my mind and way of seeing, and while moving forward these lenses became the touch stone for "creative" comparison. So it wasn't a single system that set the benchmark, it was a collection.

For me, after many years and many lenses, nothing ever beat the Zeiss 120/4 macro for the Contax 645 ... until the Leica S2 120/2.5. The S35mm is simply in a class by itself (as I suspect the new 30mm will also be) ... IMO, no other W/A even comes close to this 35mm MFD lens no matter who made them. Longer glass is a harder category to define one premium maker from the next. Suffice it to say nothing I've ever used beats the S180, and it beats most contenders as far as how well corrected it is.

Perhaps my most important comparison has been shooting a M9 with modern M optics side-by-side with the S2 ... and doing so for some time now. Because I am the one processing the files from both, I apply my taste preferences in a similar manner to both. Once done, it is very difficult to tell one from the other except for file size. Rendering, feel, drawing perceptions, micro-contrast, color ... all the words we try to use that our eye simply sees in an instant. BTW, my M glass optics are Summilux ASPH.

As a funny sort of comparison, my wife has always been able to look at a browser full of shots from various cameras I use, and pick out the Leica M shots ... it's uncanny actually. Interestingly, she cannot segregate the M9 and S2 shots.

That is ALL I ever really wanted, and the S2 delivers it. So, if you don't like the so called "Leica Look," or don't think there is such a thing, then maybe these lenses aren't for you. :)

-Marc
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
I was waiting for you to chime in, Marc. Thanks!

Edited to add... much like the Sony A900 when it came out, it seemed to have taken a fair amount of time (at first) for folks to figure out how to process the S2 files to get the most out of what the glass was offering to the sensor. I though just about everything I saw of the S2 at first was very DSLR-like. I don't see that now with mature users. On sony, the zeiss 135/1.8 was one of those magical lenses that, once you got the processing down for the system (especially the mid tone response), delivered the goods every time... whereas the same (still great) lens from Canon (the 135/2) drew the scene completely differently.

I'd love to see more Mamiya LS lens examples that show some special-ness. one of these days, I may just pick up a 645 body again... not anytime soon though.
 
Last edited:
Top