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!
Multi-part Leica S2 review
- Thread starter aboudd
- Start date
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Glad I could amuse you!
That doesn't necessarily prove it is the same sensor as the KAF-40000. And if it does have micro-lenses, their effect seems not quite as strong as the KAF-40000, at least in my impression.
Marc - would you say as the owner of an H4D/40 and an S2 that the ISO performance of the S2 equals the H4D/40? Even so, if it is not, then that also does not rule out the two being from the same wafer, perhaps in that case the chassis of the S2 does not allow an equivalent operating temperature.
Steve Hendrix
I'm not really sure Steve. In my experience, one of the major strengths of the H4D/40 in actual use was high ISO performance ... being 1 to 2 stops better than the 31meg H backs. What elements of the imaging chain contribute to that I have no idea. However, as we know, firmware has an influence on all that, as noted when the 31 meg backs received a firmware upgrade and went from a top ISO of 800 to 1600 some time ago, and at that time, the ISO 800 performance was visibly improved.
Leica chose to provide ISO increments of 80 (pull), 160 (base), 320, 640, and 1250 ... the H4D/40 is 100 (base), 200, 400, 800, 1600. The S2 does a very clean 640, and I do not use 1250 very often probably because the S lenses are generally slightly faster maximum apertures (or not slightly in the case of the 120 macros (f/2.5 verses f/4). Others are more experienced at using the S2 at 1250 than I am ... but I'd say the two cameras are comparable with the edge given to the H4D/40 at 1600.
What I did not test was how conservative or aggressive the actual ISO designations were between the two cameras. It has been noted in past that Leica's ISO 640 on the M digital cameras were more like 800 on other cameras in actual use. I have no idea if that is true or even possible, but I shoot 35mm DSLRs at 800 a lot, and 640 on the M9 a lot ... and the side-by-side experience seems very comparable.
-Marc
Leica chose to provide ISO increments of 80 (pull), 160 (base), 320, 640, and 1250 ... the H4D/40 is 100 (base), 200, 400, 800, 1600. The S2 does a very clean 640, and I do not use 1250 very often probably because the S lenses are generally slightly faster maximum apertures (or not slightly in the case of the 120 macros (f/2.5 verses f/4). Others are more experienced at using the S2 at 1250 than I am ... but I'd say the two cameras are comparable with the edge given to the H4D/40 at 1600.
What I did not test was how conservative or aggressive the actual ISO designations were between the two cameras. It has been noted in past that Leica's ISO 640 on the M digital cameras were more like 800 on other cameras in actual use. I have no idea if that is true or even possible, but I shoot 35mm DSLRs at 800 a lot, and 640 on the M9 a lot ... and the side-by-side experience seems very comparable.
-Marc
No. Couldn't care less. Didn't care if Phase and Hasselblad shared base sensors either. What matters is what comes out of the printer ... which is a result of a long imaging chain that only starts at the sensor.
To get back on the more general topic of the S2 review ... I'd say the S2 is the most improved initial camera I've ever encountered. The progress Leica has made with firmware updates and inclusion of improved LR profile and lens corrections has transformed the operation and accuracy of the S2 a great deal. :thumbs:
The AF has been improved, user selected operational choices has improved, imaging chain inclusions have improved. The genius of the 5 button user selected operational functions has been better exploited ... making it one of the simplest, fastest cameras to operate I've ever used ... including most 35mm DSLRs. Because of that, my 35mm DSLR has been collecting dust, and the big gun Hasselblad H4D/60 spends most of its time in the studio ... and as soon as I get my mitts on the CS lenses, the H will be a studio brick exclusively.
IF Leica chooses to offer a S3 with more meg etc., my current S2 will not be in danger, the H4D/60 will! I find the current meg count just right for more versatile use including a lot of hand-held 35mm DSLR like applications which would be somewhat compromised by jacking up the meg count and forcing more stringent technique to realize the benefit.
-Marc
ondebanks
Member
They don't share the same sensor...the question is whether they share the same sensor performance.
And yes, it certainly IS important - to photographers who need to shoot at the boundaries of sensor performance, like high ISO and long exposures!
Before I'd plonk my cash down for an S2 or a 645D, I'd want to know exactly how they perform and compare in these circumstances.
Ray
ondebanks
Member
Steve, copying & pasting my reply to you on this very same point on LuLa:
I've seen that Kodak press release before, but it doesn't back your assertion that the KAF-37500 + KAF-50100 architecture is somehow different from that of the KAF-40000.
First of all, it does say that "The [KAF-37500] sensor also includes specific design features that optimize its use in the S2 camera, such as the use of microlenses" - thus making it more like the KAF-40000 than the KAF-50100, as I said above. This is one of the few concrete facts we have about the S2 sensor!
Secondly, the only comparison it draws between the KAF-37500 and KAF-50000 is "Both the KAI-50100 and the KAF-37500 Image Sensors are based on the new KODAK TRUESENSE 6.0 micron Full Frame CCD Platform, the company's fourth generation of technology for professional photography. This new platform increases both the resolution and camera performance available for photographers by reducing pixel size and "click-to- capture" time for improved camera response, improving frame rate, lowering power consumption, and improving color fidelity while retaining key performance parameters available from the previous generation of technology.
- But all of that is also true of the KAF-40000.
The press release just doesn't mention the KAF-40000 at all, but that's hardly surprising since none of the new backs/cameras referred to in the release use that sensor.
Absence of a mention doesn't imply a difference.
Ray
ondebanks
Member
You're not the only one, indeed!
I don't really buy into the Leica-Kodak conspiracy of silence theory. I am inclined to think that it is basically because Kodak (reportedly) tailored the microlenses design to the S2 optics (the manner in which they vary off-axis). So the sensor might perform in a non-optimal way for other imaging applications, so Kodak decided it would be better not offer it on the open market, so why make the data sheet public?
This would excuse Kodak...but not Leica. They have nothing to lose (and many things to gain) by making their S2 sensor specs available to interested parties. Mystery in this area creates doubt rather than awe. Transparency is always the best policy.
Ray
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Exactly. Which is why I don't spend much time on what is happening in the hands of the engineer as opposed to what is happening in the hands of the photographer. And why the details of the sensor technology while generally known, don't fly out of my brain with the same certainty that real world performance feedback does.
Despite the 37500/40000/50100 murmerings - which I contributed to - the only reason I doubted that the KAF-37500 and KAF-40000 were cut from the same cloth is that the S2 high ISO seemed more reflective of an optimized KAF-50100 than a less optimized KAF-40000. The look I've seen from the high ISO files of the 645D and H4D/40 (and the P30+ also looks similar) look different than the S2 high ISO results. Based on my impression of that, my impression was the S2 and 645D were utilizing different sensors, or at least different in some way at the hardware level. I could be wrong.
For the most part, I feel it is much more important what the actual results are. And knowing what sensor a product uses can be a start to understanding that, but still paints a very incomplete picture, imo. No client of mine has ever bought a product from me because I told them it uses X sensor. They have bought products from me because I tell them exactly what to expect from the use of the product that sensor is utilized in.
Steve Hendrix
I was also interested how the S2 sensor performs before getting it but I guess a datasheet wont give the answer.
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Agree to a point. While it would be helpful to know if the same sensor is used in the S2 and 645D (or H4D/40, etc), that only tells a very partial part of the story. Kind of like trust and verify. Ok, uses this sensor, results should be similar to....
But verify with real world testing in the hands of a photographer. There can be differences in the final product and many instances of this.
Steve Hendrix
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Agreed, but when starting to read this, I thought it would be a review, and it morphed into something else all together. It is obviously useful to have an understanding of how a sensor utilizes technology and it's differences with certain cameras, but obsessing too much on this aspect and you've missed some great photographs regardless.
Perhaps a new thread about the similar attributes of sensor technology is more useful, but check your ego's at the door!
Shashin
Well-known member
It is called a conversation. Someone brings up a topic and, if you are interested, you talk about it. This discussion of the sensor was brought up in the review. BTW, no one is forcing you to join. I am not sure which is more egotistical, discussing this topic or showing your impatience with the people who are interested in it. There is also nothing stopping you from adding to this tread by talking about the review--something I noticed you have not done.
I do find accurate information interesting. I find when someone is painting something that obviously is not true, like in the film era we only cared about the lenses, that that information should be examined. I find Steve's claims very odd--for example, how can you tell if a sensor has microlenses from the image itself? But Steve has image files and perhaps he can post them to support his position. Since many folks here are interested in image quality, then the difference which Steve can actually observe in the final image would be of interest.
Now, a lot of myth are created about imaging and I think we should be careful not to create them. This seem to me to be another myth. However, Steve might be able to show the difference and that might change the way we evaluate a camera. Kind of like wanting the best lenses for our cameras, even though with film we stressed about the film itself and all the minutia of exposing and processing it.
Shashin
Well-known member
ondebanks
Member
It won't provide the whole answer but it will provide some pretty key components of the answer. There are some things (fewer than most people think) that the camera/back manufacturer can tweak, but even then the datasheet gives us upper or lower limits of what's possible, if you know how to interpret it.
It's just information, a particularly rigorous source of detailed information.
I can never understand people who say "who needs this information?", and why I often have to end up justifying the value of such information.
Ray
Tom,
Its certainly understandable that Aboud is quite busy (as many of us are), but I suggested to him earlier today that when a convienient time frame opens up, that we could possibly do a simultanious comparison of both cameras via a well controlled set-up, where initially each uses their respective 120mm macro lenses. I believe that the Pentax 120 f4 macro is one of the most consistant and highest performing lenses for the Pentax 645D and would make an ideal candidate for testing against the Leica 120 macro, which is also superb abeit somewhat faster in lens speed. It's a camera comparison (image wise) that I think many are curious about (for obvious reasons due to the apparent similarity of their respective Kodak sensors).
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
Tom I now have only the S2, - I sold the Pentax to pay for a very tiny chunk of it. In any case Dave wants a throw down on the 120s. If I can find the time before I go on vacation in a few weeks I may take him up on it. I have a small studio where we could put the cameras side by side and shoot some macros or something. I'm not sure of this, but the Pentax lens may have the advantage of 1:1 as opposed to the 1:2 of the Summarit. We will be sure to try to match the perspectives exactly.
Yo! tough guy - yeah, I'm tawkin' to youse Davie. You ready for da' big showdown?
Yo! tough guy - yeah, I'm tawkin' to youse Davie. You ready for da' big showdown?