it will be super interesting to see Nikon D800 VS Leica S2

[FredBGG]

Take a look at the samples on the official nikon page. Is it just me? I am a little underwhelmed regarding image quality at display ...

Not only you.

I took a look at them. Downloaded them and made a couple of prints on the Canon ipf8000.

I also took a look at the histograms in some advanced color grading software.

I did not like what I saw. The did not look as good as D3x. Blacks and shadow detail not as good.
Skin tones are not particularly nice either.

The Canon 1D X on the other hand looks like a significant improvement for Canon. I think they really hit the sweet spot with the gap-less 18 MP sensor.
Black look far better.

 

[Shashin]

My trash can's as good as yours

Yes, but size matters...

 

[fotografz]

It's understandable that the S2 owners are going be biased...they have to What's the big deal, I mean we're comparing a 35mm beta version D800 using a zoom lens, with an S2. Why the diatribe about its performance? Lenses are obviously the weak link, and yes, the Leica's are legendary, but also because of cost! When the final production D800e is available using Nikon's best prime with prints at standard sizes, then people can compare, perhaps this discussion is premature.

We'll the OP begged the question, so a few S2 owners answered it. So, what? I see nothing that constitutes a bitter verbal attack or sharp denunciation against anything here ... (unless someone took umbrage to my nick-naming the feisty, but doomed little Chihuahua "Nikon" ) Maybe anyone challenging a Napoleonic delusion, will be tagged as being biased and defensive I suppose.

Fact is, for some, this D800 is terrific news with-in the world of 35mm DSLRs. Had it been priced at $4,000. or even $5,000. it would still be terrific news ... so, the price no doubt is a big part of the appeal as it opens up the world of higher resolution capture to a lot more people than ever before. Basically, I see it as the democratization of higher resolution capture. Who can argue with that?

The notion that Leica buyers somehow feel compelled to comparatively justify costs is a red haring, defensive position that is as old as the Leica brand itself. One need not justify anything they enjoy, use and can afford.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Very cute, indeed!
So, professional photographers can read the minds of cameras?
I wonder what all the point and shoots would be thinking then, watching this dog fight.
Maybe they would attack in hordes. lol

:ROTFL:

 

[Paratom]

as a matter of fact i really dislike the noise pattern. same with M9. looks like D3s at iso25600.
peter

Sorry, either my eyes must be defective or the S2 you have used must have been defective.
As long as one stays at ISO 640 and lower I dont see anything to dislike regarding noise. What did you photograph-maybe its wasnt noise pattern but micro detail of the surface you photographed which you saw in the Leica image but not in the D3s image at 25600 ISO.
PS: I dont doubt the D3s is a much better high ISO machine

 

[markowich]

Sorry, either my eyes must be defective or the S2 you have used must have been defective.
As long as one stays at ISO 640 and lower I dont see anything to dislike regarding noise. What did you photograph-maybe its wasnt noise pattern but micro detail of the surface you photographed which you saw in the Leica image but not in the D3s image at 25600 ISO.
PS: I dont doubt the D3s is a much better high ISO machine

S2 (and as a matter of fact M9) files at 400iso and above have a very unpleasant color speckle noise pattern. this can certainly be eliminated in pp but when i open the files at 100% i get shocked in the first place. most of this does not show up in small scale prints or on webpages but since we live in the 100% magnification world...
if you doubt that the D3s is a better high iso machine, then i run out of arguments.
peter

 

[fotografz]

as a matter of fact i really dislike the noise pattern. same with M9. looks like D3s at iso25600.
peter

Wow! I gotta check out the D3s @ ISO 25,600 if it is as good as the S2 or M9 at 400 or 640. !!!!!!!!!

Actually, I don't. I can spot a credibility eroding exaggeration from a mile away. Just more internet "noise".

Here are a couple of working wedding shots with the S2 ... the "Bridge Kiss" was shot at ISO 320 and pushed a stop in Post to open up the shadows a bit ... crop shows noise levels, or I should say lack of noise levels. The "Pear Picking" shot was done at 640, and crop still shows lack of noise. Of 370 shots done at this wedding 299 were @ ISO 640, so I could keep the shutter speeds up for spontaneous work, as well as these more structured shots. Lots of 17X22 prints were ordered from this wedding ($$$$$$):thumbs:

Talk's cheap, exaggerations even cheaper ... let the pics do the talking.

-Marc

 

[markowich]

Wow! I gotta check out the D3s @ ISO 25,600 if it is as good as the S2 or M9 at 400 or 640. !!!!!!!!!

Actually, I don't. I can spot a credibility eroding exaggeration from a mile away. Just more internet "noise".

Here are a couple of working wedding shots with the S2 ... the "Bridge Kiss" was shot at ISO 320 and pushed a stop in Post to open up the shadows a bit ... crop shows noise levels, or I should say lack of noise levels. The "Pear Picking" shot was done at 640, and crop still shows lack of noise. Of 370 shots done at this wedding 299 were @ ISO 640, so I could keep the shutter speeds up for spontaneous work, as well as these more structured shots. Lots of 17X22 prints were ordered from this wedding ($$$$$$):thumbs:

Talk's cheap, exaggerations even cheaper ... let the pics do the talking.

-Marc

you show pics of an extremely well lit scene, so what is the issue here?
heard of DxO sensor tests? just check M9 and D3s. or is this too scientific?
not real world enough---)))?
i can already guess what will be the next line of arguments: the S2 autofocus beats the D3s autofocus, right?
peter

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Before this descends any further, just a few short remarks:

Peter -- Tom said he DOESN'T doubt that the D3s is a better high ISO machine, not that he did doubt.

As for the speckled color noise pattern, I know what you are referring to, and it is present in both the M9 and S2. It is however, very easily taken care of with even the smallest amount of color noise reduction in lightroom or whatever other RAW converter you use. I think part of the issue here is the difference between CCDs and CMOS sensors. CMOS does a lot of image processing on the chip, and the "RAW" output of a DSLR has had more noise reduction and tweaking in the camera than most CCD cameras. This is where EXPEED and Digic 5+ and Maestro all come to play. Raw data is not actually raw, a lot has been done to it. Different manufacturers have different priorities and capabilities. Medium format cameras tend to leave things more "raw" than 35mm DSLR's. This is one reason why they tend to get smoked in DxO testing. Personally, I just think we should judge based on final output, after all the processing required and so on (and then add in a subjective evaluation on how much work it took to get there!).
But clearly, if the S2 is not working for you at ISO 400, then it is probably not for you. There is certainly not anything wrong with that!

 

[fotografz]

you show pics of an extremely well lit scene, so what is the issue here?
heard of DxO sensor tests? just check M9 and D3s. or is this too scientific?
not real world enough---)))?
i can already guess what will be the next line of arguments: the S2 autofocus beats the D3s autofocus, right?
peter

Well, I don't have any line of initial arguments, just responses to undefined, general blanket statements. I doubt anyone has made a claim that the S2 is a low light tool, nor that it is a sports camera for tracking-focus shots, or anything of the sort. Horses for courses. If that is your criteria for your photography, then the S2 is the wrong choice IMO.

Like with real estate, three words ... application, application, application.

-Marc

 

[markowich]

hi stuart,
i do agree that some of the perceptual noise differences come down to the CMOS-CCD issue and the pre-preparation of RAW data (canikon certainly does some of it) and of course user-pp. but signal to noise data (measured off the sensor) speak a very clear language in favour of CMOS technology.
i believe that the argument is rather moot since the M10 and -i would guess- also the S3 or whatever it will be called, will feature CMOS technology.
all the best, peter

Before this descends any further, just a few short remarks:

Peter -- Tom said he DOESN'T doubt that the D3s is a better high ISO machine, not that he did doubt.

As for the speckled color noise pattern, I know what you are referring to, and it is present in both the M9 and S2. It is however, very easily taken care of with even the smallest amount of color noise reduction in lightroom or whatever other RAW converter you use. I think part of the issue here is the difference between CCDs and CMOS sensors. CMOS does a lot of image processing on the chip, and the "RAW" output of a DSLR has had more noise reduction and tweaking in the camera than most CCD cameras. This is where EXPEED and Digic 5+ and Maestro all come to play. Raw data is not actually raw, a lot has been done to it. Different manufacturers have different priorities and capabilities. Medium format cameras tend to leave things more "raw" than 35mm DSLR's. This is one reason why they tend to get smoked in DxO testing. Personally, I just think we should judge based on final output, after all the processing required and so on (and then add in a subjective evaluation on how much work it took to get there!).
But clearly, if the S2 is not working for you at ISO 400, then it is probably not for you. There is certainly not anything wrong with that!

 

[Paratom]

Peter,
I havent done dxo analyses or anything else - I just say what I see and what I like (which might be different from what you like).
I have shot the M9 in all kinds of light and for my taste I prefer the images up to ISO 640 of the M9 over those from the D700 (I know the d3s has a better sensor but the d700 isnt too bad).
I have shot many images with the S2 at ISO 640 and also here I can not see any problem. ISO 1250 of the S2 is another question - first I totally avoided it but now I use it here and then, also realizing that 100% is different from looking at files in print and 1250 ISO with the S2 I clearly see as not great.
I am talking about overall IQ which does not inlcude noise only but also detail and micro detail.
With the Leica CCDs I find ISO up to a certain value very good (and better than most cmos) but then if you go higher it looks like crap and cmos is still very usable. But thats my taste and I dont say its scientific or the truth, its just my impression and how I see things.

 

[Paratom]

here is a 1250 iso and a 640 ISO iamge from the S2, which looks ok to me. (I know its downsized but it doesnt look bad either in a larger size.)

 

[Paratom]

you show pics of an extremely well lit scene, so what is the issue here?
heard of DxO sensor tests? just check M9 and D3s. or is this too scientific?
not real world enough---)))?
i can already guess what will be the next line of arguments: the S2 autofocus beats the D3s autofocus, right?
peter

Sorry for many answers,
but I wanted to add some more thoughts:
1) I am not talking against Nikon, further more I have used D3 and D3x and still own a D700 and some nice Nikon glass for those times when I want to have fast AF.
2) Who would care for dxo as long as we have eyes to see. I dont waste my time with such numbers.

 

[markowich]

Sorry for many answers,
but I wanted to add some more thoughts:
1) I am not talking against Nikon, further more I have used D3 and D3x and still own a D700 and some nice Nikon glass for those times when I want to have fast AF.
2) Who would care for dxo as long as we have eyes to see. I dont waste my time with such numbers.

i see your point. but it is at the heart of my scientific believes that generally 'numbers' have a deep impact on reality and that they are able to represent a strong part of what we perceive, if interpreted correcty of course.
but this is a philosophical point, not a photographic one---)))
anyway, i do not want to trash leica either, i have an M9 with 5 lenses and the S2 with 4 lenses and i appreciate both systems to some extent. what i criticize is leica's ultraconservative engineering approach. certainly this is at the heart of german engineering tradition but other german companies have become technology leaders (porsche, bmw, audi........etc...). leica still seems still to struggle to free itself from a retro-orientation which in my view has no place in modern photography anymore. but they might prove me wrong later this year in september...
peter

 

[fotografz]

here is a 1250 iso and a 640 ISO iamge from the S2, which looks ok to me. (I know its downsized but it doesnt look bad either in a larger size.)

Nice shots!

I think the noise discussion revolves around performance in low ambient rather than decent light. Personally, the use of S2 @ 640 and 1250 more frequently meets a different need ... allowing a smaller aperture for DOF, or a higher shutter speed for action or hand-holding more steady. Really high ISO performance is the domaine of some 35mm DSLRs, however, I never found them to be as good as I was lead to believe they were. Too much CMOS mush ... which the D800E may correct.

I do use the S2 in low light. While the attached wedding shot (with a crop included) was backlit by a 400w/s strobe, the dominate part was exposed by dragging the shutter to capture the ambient, and shadow detail was restored using shadow recovery ... which can produce more than normal noise.

I prefer that the camera not apply noise control in a wholesale manner, which is why I like working with the M9, S2 or H4D/60 CCD cameras. This allows me to be very selective as to noise control applications. It is just a different working methodology. Frankly, I don't go out looking for low light challenges beyond the scope of what is possible with the S2 ... that's the place for a good 35mm DSLR IMO.

I actually hope the S2 doesn't go CMOS ... but it may be a good thing for the M digital since that is supposed to be a low ambient light animal. Or CCD if they could just squeeze another full stop out of it. Pretty sure the M10 will be a CMOS.

-Marc

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

We'll the OP begged the question, so a few S2 owners answered it. So, what? I see nothing that constitutes a bitter verbal attack or sharp denunciation against anything here ... (unless someone took umbrage to my nick-naming the feisty, but doomed little Chihuahua "Nikon" ) Maybe anyone challenging a Napoleonic delusion, will be tagged as being biased and defensive I suppose.

Fact is, for some, this D800 is terrific news with-in the world of 35mm DSLRs. Had it been priced at $4,000. or even $5,000. it would still be terrific news ... so, the price no doubt is a big part of the appeal as it opens up the world of higher resolution capture to a lot more people than ever before. Basically, I see it as the democratization of higher resolution capture. Who can argue with that?

The notion that Leica buyers somehow feel compelled to comparatively justify costs is a red haring, defensive position that is as old as the Leica brand itself. One need not justify anything they enjoy, use and can afford.

-Marc

If S2 owners were not so quick to defend, then why all the S2 photographs to show how amazing they are. Although, the thread title is D800e vs S2, there's no production models with prime lenses yet to compare it to the S2. They're two different camera formats,(sort of) so what's to compare other than the fact that there close in MP's and approximately $35,000 difference in price for just one lens S2? I demoed an S2 for a possible purchase, I had it for a week. I loved the form factor, and weather sealing, my intent was to use this for portraits and landscapes, but there was little room for cropping, if needed, and the colors were to "crunchy", and needed dialing back right out of the camera. Having an H4D/40, I couldn't justify what seemed to me a 35mm camera on steroids, and I guess that's why all the comparisons. The S2 is a fantastic camera, for what it is, but I admittedly kept comparing it to a 35mm, and that's exactly why I decided against it. Those who did, you have a fine camera, but let's be honest about these comparisons.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Marc,

I love the detail and symmetry in this photo, and how nicely the S2 takes post. Even the un flagged 400w does nice.

 

[Geoff]

Here are a couple of working wedding shots with the S2 ... the "Bridge Kiss" was shot at ISO 320 and pushed a stop in Post to open up the shadows a bit ... crop shows noise levels, or I should say lack of noise levels. The "Pear Picking" shot was done at 640, and crop still shows lack of noise. Of 370 shots done at this wedding 299 were @ ISO 640, so I could keep the shutter speeds up for spontaneous work, as well as these more structured shots. Lots of 17X22 prints were ordered from this wedding ($$$$$$):thumbs:

Talk's cheap, exaggerations even cheaper ... let the pics do the talking.

-Marc

Marc -
Great crops. Truly amazing.

In the one with the flowers, is the hand a bit soft? Is that DOF issue raising its head? Maybe its the lens and aperture? It seems that with MFDB, DOF is more of an issue than one expects....

Geoff

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I have not read almost any of this but it's clear once again everything gets compared against everything else. The S2 has a lot going for it PERIOD. This simply comes down to money this cost which we all agree is not low is compared to something that is much lower in price so the cheaper model must be better. Folks that is the theme of every one of these comparisons. The cheaper model is always better. It's gotta be its what most of us can afford so lets just make it a better choice. ROTFLMAO

I so wish this stuff was not based on the delta's. End of day this stuff means very little if someone is completely happy and comfortable with what they have as long as they can produce great art which we all can with a P&S if we had to. Hell I may buy a Nikon also but not to replace my MF gear nor to replace a S2 if I had one. BTW the Nikon is vapor right now how the hell can you compare it.