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!

Leica S2 question

AreBee

Member
Hello All,

This is my first post on GetDPI, albeit I have been lurking for quite some time.

I am a landscape photographer and currently shoot a D800E. I would greatly appreciate if you could help me understand the difference between the S2 and D800E as it relates to depth of field. In order to help me, please consider the following example. For simplicity, please consider the resolution of the D800E and S2 identical:

The S2 has a larger sensor than the D800E and therefore a longer focal length is required to achieve the same field of view. All else being equal, depth of field will be less for the former than the latter because of this.

However, given that the larger sensor in the S2 has an identical number of pixels as the D800E, pixel size is greater for the former than the latter. Therefore, some, if not all of the reduction in depth of field can be reclaimed by stopping down the S2 without the same penalty from diffraction. My first question to you is: can the reduction in depth of field be reclaimed fully, and if not, by how much can it be reclaimed until the effect of diffraction is equal?

Continuing on the (possibly false) assumption that depth of field can be reclaimed fully, the same image printed to the same size from the S2 requires less enlargement than that from the D800E because its sensor is larger. My understanding is that the greater the enlargement, the greater the reduction in perceived depth of field when viewed from the same distance. Hence, I am left concluding that an identical image from the S2 has greater depth of field than that from a D800E. I am fairly confident that I am mistaken on this, but do not know where the error is. Hence, my second question to you is: please can someone explain?

Cheers,
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
On the second point, assuming that you shoot the same image with the S2 & D800, they will both be 36/37mp in size regardless of the physical sensor size and so should render the same to a final output.

As regards DoF ... Print or 100% on-screen rendering? There are different answers depending upon which method you use to measure.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
At any given field of view with the same aperture, the S2 will have slight less DoF given the same print size and viewing distance. Pixels have nothing to do with DoF. But the S2 does have a larger format and so can be stopped down more with the same effect on diffraction on the image--or to put it another, the minimum acceptable aperture is smaller with the S2.

But the difference between formats are not that great to worry about it.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
think of chip size as 'film size' - the larger the film size the smaller the DOF - all other things being equal.

e.g. In film days - 35mm shooters worried about too much DOF (hence the popularity of more expensive fast glass) whilst MF & LF shooters worried that they couldn't get enough DOF - and all the angst one had concerning any particular lens's optimal aperture at infinity versus diffraction issues..
 

AreBee

Member
Shashin,

At any given field of view with the same aperture, the S2 will have slight less DoF given the same print size and viewing distance. Pixels have nothing to do with DoF. But the S2 does have a larger format and so can be stopped down more with the same effect on diffraction on the image--or to put it another, the minimum acceptable aperture is smaller with the S2.
Understood, thank you.

But the difference between formats are not that great to worry about it.
This is exactly the information I was after. I had expected it to be the case. After all, the 617 format provides an enormous size of negative and those that shoot it for landscape appear to obtain adequate depth of field. Nevertheless, I am glad to have my suspicion confirmed. Thank you.
 

AreBee

Member
Peter,

think of chip size as 'film size' - the larger the film size the smaller the DOF - all other things being equal.
Understood, thank you.

e.g. In film days - 35mm shooters worried about too much DOF (hence the popularity of more expensive fast glass) whilst MF & LF shooters worried that they couldn't get enough DOF - and all the angst one had concerning any particular lens's optimal aperture at infinity versus diffraction issues..
I'm not sure I would agree with "worry too much". Depth of field and diffraction are real and valid concerns to be taken into account. The fact that many photographers today deliberately shoot tech cameras to control these, and other, issues speaks for itself.
 

proenca

Member
another thing to add to your equation : lens & diffraction.

I had a D800E, albeit for a few days only and from F8/F11, depending on the lens, diffraction was clearly visible.

not so with the S2, the diffraction limit is much higher - but then again, my S2 is today in Leica Portugal for a checkup and cleaning sensor, so no real testing I can do here to show you.

D800E is a great all around camera, but the sensor size pushed the lenses too much, thats what I keep reading. I suspect that is why Canon said that would halt the mp race - they would have to redesign lots of lenses. Heck, their 16-35 is still crappy after a two redesigns :)

Anyway, Nikon has a much newer lens lineup, but if you have a D800E you know this : to show the D800E true potential, lens lineup much be choose very very carefully. Not many lens are up to par with the sensor and humongus stress it puts on the lenses.

Leica on the other hand its different. S lenses were designed from the ground up to outresolve the sensor by a stretch. As far S lenses go, you dont have many, but all of them are absolutly world class. There is not a single lens that is bad. Or "so/so". Even the damn kit lens. They are spetacular, all single one of them.

And that makes a world of difference vs the D800E, apart from other things.

Dont get me wrong, D800E excells in areas where the S2 can only dream of > AF speed, High ISO, etc. But image quality at lower isos, insane byblical monstrous viewfinder, sharpness and clarity of the files, the S2 rules.
 

RVB

Member
another thing to add to your equation : lens & diffraction.

I had a D800E, albeit for a few days only and from F8/F11, depending on the lens, diffraction was clearly visible.

not so with the S2, the diffraction limit is much higher - but then again, my S2 is today in Leica Portugal for a checkup and cleaning sensor, so no real testing I can do here to show you.

D800E is a great all around camera, but the sensor size pushed the lenses too much, thats what I keep reading. I suspect that is why Canon said that would halt the mp race - they would have to redesign lots of lenses. Heck, their 16-35 is still crappy after a two redesigns :)

Anyway, Nikon has a much newer lens lineup, but if you have a D800E you know this : to show the D800E true potential, lens lineup much be choose very very carefully. Not many lens are up to par with the sensor and humongus stress it puts on the lenses.

Leica on the other hand its different. S lenses were designed from the ground up to outresolve the sensor by a stretch. As far S lenses go, you dont have many, but all of them are absolutly world class. There is not a single lens that is bad. Or "so/so". Even the damn kit lens. They are spetacular, all single one of them.

And that makes a world of difference vs the D800E, apart from other things.

Dont get me wrong, D800E excells in areas where the S2 can only dream of > AF speed, High ISO, etc. But image quality at lower isos, insane byblical monstrous viewfinder, sharpness and clarity of the files, the S2 rules.
https://www.yousendit.com/download/WUJiYUl2cGtRWUpESjlVag

The above is a link to files I shot comparing the S2 with 30mm to the D800E with 24mm 1.4G.. the S lenses is a little better but the Nikkor is surprisingly good..they're raw's so you can process them yourself..
 

Paratom

Well-known member
My feeling is that DOF difference is between roughly 1-1.5 f-stops.
I mean the 70mm at f2.8 would lead to the same DOF like a 50mm on the Nikon at f2.0

If you shoot a lot stopped down I would assume handheldshooting with the S2 gets difficult.
I shoot mostly handheld but a lot in the f2.5-f8 range - so I cant help with experience about diffraction.

Other differences I see is that the Leica lenses are allready exceptional even wide open, with very small vignetting. And you get (slow) but precise AF compared to Zeiss lenses on the Nikon. But then you dont have life view in the S2. But you get a nicer viewfinder. And a lighter wallet ;)
 

proenca

Member
thanks for providing the files. first because the S 30mm for me its only a mirage for the months to come, since I nearly bought the S2 and new lens aquisitions have a big no/no from the wife :)

now, I always say > the D800E, paired with good lenses, is formidable megapixel quality for money.

Close to a S2 and other MFD ? indeed. is the S2 4 or 5 times better ? no, or at least I dont think so. but its better. how much you value that, its up to the buyer.

for example in your two files, I can clearly see differences in terms of CA, file "elasticity" and clarity, specially when you start processing them to taste. highlights recover better in the S2 file, shadows contain so much more information, and so on.

again, is the D800E a formidable camera for the money ? indeed. but the S2 for me its better in the areas that I like.

everyone milleage vary :)
 

proenca

Member
I mean the 70mm at f2.8 would lead to the same DOF like a 50mm on the Nikon at f2.0

If you shoot a lot stopped down I would assume handheldshooting with the S2 gets difficult.
I shoot mostly handheld but a lot in the f2.5-f8 range - so I cant help with experience about diffraction.

Other differences I see is that the Leica lenses are allready exceptional even wide open, with very small vignetting. And you get (slow) but precise AF compared to Zeiss lenses on the Nikon. But then you dont have life view in the S2. But you get a nicer viewfinder. And a lighter wallet ;)
few things, but S2 experienced owners please correct me :

70mm is 2,5 not, 2,8

comparing *not scientific tested in anyway* this to 35mm, I would say its a 50/55mm with 1.2 or 1.4 aperture

handheld shooting with the S2 is perfectly possible - altough heavier than the D800 and pro slrs, its weight is more balanced. the weight of the S2 actually helps getting the camera stable, rather than a photographer trying to fight it. for example, the 24/70 AFS on a D800 is front heavy and seems like a pendulum. Here doesnt - camera + lens are extremely well balanced: also the shutter is quite well dampned when it comes to MF

no live view indeed

wallet lightness is visibile from a mile off :)
 

proenca

Member
I wonder if Marc sees this post if he could comment on the comparison between the H series finders and the Leica S2 finder?
As far as I remember, S2 is bigger and brighter than the H3D I had for a week.

I didnt had the H3D when I bought the S2, so Marc is the person to answer this since I believe he has H4D currently AND a S2
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I've tried to look through everything (at least everything at B&H, and that has been quite a lot over the past 30 years). Aside from the waist level finders on some MF cameras, there have been only two viewfinders that I could see through without vignetting while wearing glasses. They were the Nikon High Eye-point and the Leica S2.

Everything else looks like a dim tunnel. All current Canon, Nikon, Sony, Hasselblad, and Phase - awful by comparison with the Leica. Now I either use no viewfinder at all (tech cam) or live view (Oly OM-D). But I'd be quite happy with the view through the S2.

Biblical, indeed! :ROTFL:

Matt
 

AreBee

Member
another thing to add to your equation : lens & diffraction.

I had a D800E, albeit for a few days only and from F8/F11, depending on the lens, diffraction was clearly visible.
Agreed. I generally shoot at f/8 and dislike stopping down to f/11 but will if the composition demands it. I never stop down further than f/11 because what I gain in depth of field I lose through diffraction.

not so with the S2, the diffraction limit is much higher
True, but for the same aperture on the S2 you have less depth of field than the D800E. Hence the purpose of my original question: can one stop down the S2 to obtain a depth of field equivalent to the D800E yet exhibit diffraction no greater than the D800E?

D800E is a great all around camera, but the sensor size pushed the lenses too much, thats what I keep reading.
That is my own experience and the reason I am considering moving to the S2.

Folks, perhaps I should give you a bit of background information so that you can see where I am coming from, so to speak.

I came late to photography. My first DSLR was the Nikon D300. Being a landscape shooter who intends to print 3:1 panormas not less than 36" along the long edge a high MP camera is of great interest to me. Hence, eventually I moved to a D3x and now shoot a D800E.

You will note that I wrote 3:1 panoramas. I crop this aspect from the frame. I am excellent at stitching and stitch 360° spherical panoramas manually. However, I dislike stitching 'normal' images, even though I am well aware of the resolution I am potentially throwing away. Why do I not stitch 'normal' images? Because I would rather capture one image of an instant than stitch together a series of images from several instants. Been there, done that, didn't like it.

I have considered film MF and even LF cameras over the last year or two but, while I have never tried them, I know within myself that I would prefer to work in digital in the format that I adopt. I am aware of the digital equivalent of a 617 MF film camera but am horrified at what to me looks less like capturing an image with a camera, and more like with a computer, even though I myself handle a camera only to secure it to a tripod.

The 3:2 (Small) Format lends itself to my cropping to a 3:1 aspect more so than a 4:3 (Medium) Format does, because it provides a greater number of pixels along the long edge for the same MP chip. Hence, one attraction of the Leica S2, which also adopts a 3:2 aspect.

Tech/View cameras have been considered. However, while movements would allow me to achieve front to back DOF while avoiding the deleterious effect of diffraction, it is true to say that there are compositions for which tilt cannot be made to 'fit'. Besides, part of me feels that OOF regions of an image provides the image with a degree of character and therefore should not simply be discarded in order to obtain front to back sharpness in cases where the composition lends itself to the use of camera movements.

Leica on the other hand its different. S lenses were designed from the ground up to outresolve the sensor by a stretch.
This I know. I have spent an enormous amount of time researching the S2 and a significant appeal of the S-System is that by buying into it I will future proof myself, in so far as one can with technology. Bodies tend to come and go whereas lenses endure. Sensor resolution is only going to increase with time yet many 35mm DSLR lenses that once returned commendable results now are showing the strain of the current MP chip. I have no interest in upgrading lenses again and again. Hence, I figure that by buying into the S-System the lenses will be more than adequate for my future needs regardless of the MP that future S-bodies provide.

My plan of attack, should I go ahead and purchase an S2 and lens(es), is to purchase a second hand or ex-demo S2 but new lens(es). I have investgiated the focal length range I tend to shoot at and, being a landscape shooter, it will come as no surprise to you all that I shoot from 14mm to approximately 60-70mm.

I am aware that the 24mm S-lens is 19mm equivalent, and for that reason I would probably keep the D800E for ultrawide shots. The 24, 30, 35 and 70mm are all attractive to me, though I'd probably look at obtaining the 24, 35 and 70mm initially and pad out at a later date.

Dont get me wrong, D800E excells in areas where the S2 can only dream of > AF speed, High ISO, etc. But image quality at lower isos, insane byblical monstrous viewfinder, sharpness and clarity of the files, the S2 rules.
The lack of all the bells and whistles on the S2 that come as standard with a 35mm DSLR does not deter me in the least. I shoot in 14 bit RAW at base ISO or ISO Lo 1 whenever the dynamic range of the scene is within the reduced DR of the camera at this setting so as to reduce noise still further. It clearly makes a small, but to me significant, visible difference.

My feeling is that DOF difference is between roughly 1-1.5 f-stops.
I am a subscriber to Lloyd Chambers website and in his review of the S2 he mentions one stop, if I remember correctly.

If you shoot a lot stopped down I would assume handheldshooting with the S2 gets difficult.
I do shoot stopped down. However the camera is 100% on a tripod (Gitzo 3-series with an Arca cube head) so camera motion is irrelevant.

Other differences I see is that the Leica lenses are allready exceptional even wide open, with very small vignetting. And you get (slow) but precise AF compared to Zeiss lenses on the Nikon. But then you dont have live view in the S2. But you get a nicer viewfinder.
I use Live View 100% of the time and the lack of it on the S2, or indeed any CCD chip camera, was a deal breaker for me. However, while not ideal, I figure that I can work around it by having a split screen installed, and reviewing images at 100% magnification on the LCD after capture. I use a Zacuto Z-finder loupe, so glare of the LCD on the rear of the camera is irrelevant.

...for example in your two files, I can clearly see differences in terms of CA...
I have yet to download the files and play with them (thank you RVB!). However, I am not sure why CA is mentioned above. Most if not all modern software removes it automatically without any degredation to the original image data, does it not?

All,

I have held an S2 in my hands when I visited the Leica store in Mayfair at the time of the London Olympics. Unfortunately my flight had been delayed and I literally had to run to the store in order to catch it just before it shut for the day (visiting the following day was not possible). Consequently, I have not had a chance to really play with an S2. Clearly I would do so before sinking such a significant sum of money into a new camera system. As noted above, I have investigated the S2 as best I can, though now that I am close to the point at which I actually could purchase one, I am doing a lot of soul searching. Time will tell how the situation pans out.

As always, any comments or advice you have for me would be most welcome.
 

proenca

Member
(...)

As always, any comments or advice you have for me would be most welcome.
Few things to point out :

- Leica S2 has one of the best (if not the best) viewfinder in the MF world. Its BIG, its biblycal, its huge. Throw in a split screen and manual focusing is a breeze. To be honest, with the 70mm I have, if the camera is resting on a tripod and there isnt any rush, I can manual focus with ease (and I dont have the split screen, just standard one)

- Remember the rule of "dont go into a system because of its promises but go into a system because of its streghts". Thats my rule and I want copyright eheheh :)nonetheless, follow it. Go to the S2 if the system, as of today , pleases you. Works for you. Works with you. Dont drop few dozens of thousands whatver currency its in your bank because of the "it will come one day". S24mm is the widest you have today. One of the widest in the MF world. Dont drop 20k on the S2 expecting that one day a 14 or 15 35mm equivallent will come out. May never will.

- Pick one S2 and play with it. Its vital. I bought mine without holding one before but :I spent hundreds of hours (not kidding here ) reading every article and absorbing every forum online about the S2. I made a deal with the seller that if I didnt like it, I woulnd pay for it - but unfortunatly I would keep it as well eheehhe. But Im a die hard Leica fan and user years ago and I was confident of the S. And it took me 15 minutes with the camera to drop everything and start wiring the money, holding the camera like Gollum saying "its my precioussssss".

Its really a great camera. Built like a rock. Weather sealed. Great sensor. Superb lenses. nice AF (not ultra fast) but SUPER precise. Huge viewfinder.

Im going to Paris and then Geneva for Holidays in December, if you are anywere near, drop me an email and we'll have a coffee and you'll play with mine.


ps :ffordes have a good camera at a good price, perhaps its close to you ?
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Dont drop few dozens of thousands whatver currency its in your bank because of the "it will come one day". S24mm is the widest you have today. One of the widest in the MF world. Dont drop 20k on the S2 expecting that one day a 14 or 15 35mm equivallent will come out. May never will.
Just a correction: the Leica 24mm with it's 1.3 crop sensor is not as wide as the 28mm and 24mm lenses offered by Phase, Mamiya, and Hassy. It's also nowhere near as wide as the 23mm or 17mm offered (on full frame sensors) by a tech camera or Hartblei/AlpaFPS systems.

So I don't think it's fair to say it's one of the widest.

That said, it's a very sharp, very good lens, and if it's wide enough for what you want/need then it will be a great lens.

Your advice about buying based on what is available today is sage! Every brand has been guilty of making promised features, hardware, software, only to have them arrive late, very late, or not at all.
 

torger

Active member
please can someone explain?
The short answer on DoF is that sensor size does not matter, only resolution does. It's a zero-sum game. Larger sensor -> longer focal length for equivalent FOV -> smaller aperture for equivalent DOF -> more diffraction, but you get equivalent overall resolution. What you do lose with a larger sensor is that you get longer shutter speeds due to the smaller aperture.

If you have a 80 megapixel sensor and want the same pixel peep sharpness as on a 20 megapixel sensor you need larger relative aperture to reduce diffraction and then you lose DoF.

The S2 and the D800 has virtually the same form factor and the same resolution of the sensor, so in terms of DoF they are theoretically equivalent.

However, different systems are optimized for different shooting apertures, I don't know at which apertures the S2 performs best in terms of landscape. I'm quite sure though that the differences will be negligible.

When I had an APS-C camera I used to shoot at f/8. My 33 megapixel 48x36 Aptus I shoot at f/11 which is where the lenses performs best. There I experience a difference in DoF as if I would use the corresponding on my Aptus it would be something like f/18.

Depending on what apertures the S2 can set I'd guess you'd notice a 1/3 stop difference max in deep DoF experience, and that is negligible in any practical use.
 

AreBee

Member
Leica S2 has one of the best (if not the best) viewfinder in the MF world. Its BIG...
Yes, everyone appears to agree on that. :)

Go to the S2 if the system, as of today , pleases you. Works for you. Works with you. Dont drop few dozens of thousands whatver currency its in your bank because of the "it will come one day".
I have no concern in that regard. I too have scoured the internet for literature on the S2 and am aware of how limited the S-System was when first released...and of the delay for CS lenses to become available. I am happy with the lenses that are available at present, though it'd be nice to have something between the 35mm and 70mm. I certainly do not consider it a dealbreaker though.

Im going to Paris and then Geneva for Holidays in December, if you are anywere near, drop me an email and we'll have a coffee and you'll play with mine.
That is incredibly generous of you. Thank you very much. However, I unfortunately must decline, as I will not be in the vicinity.

ps :ffordes have a good camera at a good price, perhaps its close to you?
That's funny: I happened to be looking online at Fforbes today and noticed what they had available. Fforbes is, in fact, nearby to me: probably less than 25 miles. However, I have never found them to be particularly competitive on price, despite being an excellent camera store with knowledgable staff.

Your advice about buying based on what is available today is sage! Every brand has been guilty of making promised features, hardware, software, only to have them arrive late, very late, or not at all.
Understood, thank you.

All,

So as to not post multiple threads on the S2 I will ask any questions I have in this thread. With that in mind, I would like to ask your opinion on an issue that I have not myself resolved:

The S2 (and S, of course) allows the use of a leaf shutter if a CS lens is mounted to the body. I have zero interest in flash photography. However, the CS lenses are of interest to me because they will reduce camera shake in comparison to the focal plane shutter. Unfortunately, the focal plane shutter must open the curtain prior to firing the leaf shutter. Hence, any reduction in camera shake achieved through the use of a CS lens is, at present, negated by opening of the focal plane shutter curtain.

Now, I am well aware that the S2 (and S) has a well damped shutter mechanism. However, it is a fact that the mechanism generates camera shake, no matter how small it may be. There would be a way to realise the advantage of CS lenses, as it relates to camera shake, which would be to delay firing the leaf shutter until the curtain of the focal plane shutter had settled. Alternatively, an Electronic First Curtain Shutter (EFCS) could be adopted. Canon DSLRs apparently enjoy the latter and you can read here. The difference it makes is, for me, very significant. Bear in mind that I am thinking to the future, with ever higher MP chips in bodies/backs, where the utmost care must be taken to realise the resolution potential on offer.

In full understanding that we none of us can know with certainty what Leica may or may not do in the future, would you purchase CS lenses instead of non-CS lenses in order to cover yourself for the future, were it to transpire, of course. If not, please can you provide your reasoning?

For what it is worth, my own line of thought is that it would perhaps be best to purchase non-CS lenses and if, one day, Leica do release an S-body with a delay to the curtain of the focal plane shutter before firing the leaf shutter of a CS lens, or an EFCS system, then I would then upgrade to CS lenses (which by then would at least would be readily available :rolleyes:).

Cheers,
 
Top