Oops! I didn't even notice this wasn't the Nikon forum since I was coming directly from e-mail alerts. Sorry.I have to admit that I didnt look for halation when I compared the lenses.
The Sigma balances very well on a D3 but I can see that it might be a little big on a D700.
It feels tiny though after having used the Rollei 110/2.0 on the Hy6
For now I really like to bring the 50 prime (with 2 or 3 other primes) more often instead of carrying the 24-70.
Regards, Tom
Sorry for the Nikon talk in a MF thread
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 delayed and possible price?
- Thread starter ptomsu
- Start date
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Throwing some more oil into this discussion about Nikon vs. Canon:
As a Nikon user for many years (D3 plus most of their high end new glass) I am still missing the fast primes.
Canon is offering these plus they are better in my opinion with their high resolution models (1DsMk3 and 5D2) than the Nikon D3X and A900). Resolution is not everything, for me it is also the way they calculate a "clean" photo at higher iSO and here I clearly prefer Canon. Plus I also refer their camera handling.
And also compared some lenses like the 24-70 from Canon and Nikon which I currently both own - although the Canon is a far older design, it outperforms overall the new Nikon lens. Same for the classical 2.8/70-200.
So this "Nikon lenses are better than Canon" is pure storytelling or in best case personal feeling and preference, which of course is important and if someone has these preferences and is happy than fine!
In the end of the day both can not hold up against Leica glass, but I think this was clear from the beginning and the question is if it is not better to just have any good lens as compared to none (from Leica).
As a Nikon user for many years (D3 plus most of their high end new glass) I am still missing the fast primes.
Canon is offering these plus they are better in my opinion with their high resolution models (1DsMk3 and 5D2) than the Nikon D3X and A900). Resolution is not everything, for me it is also the way they calculate a "clean" photo at higher iSO and here I clearly prefer Canon. Plus I also refer their camera handling.
And also compared some lenses like the 24-70 from Canon and Nikon which I currently both own - although the Canon is a far older design, it outperforms overall the new Nikon lens. Same for the classical 2.8/70-200.
So this "Nikon lenses are better than Canon" is pure storytelling or in best case personal feeling and preference, which of course is important and if someone has these preferences and is happy than fine!
In the end of the day both can not hold up against Leica glass, but I think this was clear from the beginning and the question is if it is not better to just have any good lens as compared to none (from Leica).
Your post simply illustrates what a wide set of criteria each person has and how distinctly unique we often are from one another. :clap:Throwing some more oil into this discussion about Nikon vs. Canon:
As a Nikon user for many years (D3 plus most of their high end new glass) I am still missing the fast primes.
Canon is offering these plus they are better in my opinion with their high resolution models (1DsMk3 and 5D2) than the Nikon D3X and A900). Resolution is not everything, for me it is also the way they calculate a "clean" photo at higher iSO and here I clearly prefer Canon. Plus I also refer their camera handling.
And also compared some lenses like the 24-70 from Canon and Nikon which I currently both own - although the Canon is a far older design, it outperforms overall the new Nikon lens. Same for the classical 2.8/70-200.
So this "Nikon lenses are better than Canon" is pure storytelling or in best case personal feeling and preference, which of course is important and if someone has these preferences and is happy than fine!
In the end of the day both can not hold up against Leica glass, but I think this was clear from the beginning and the question is if it is not better to just have any good lens as compared to none (from Leica).
For example, I was a fully vested user of Canon 1 series tools from the EOS-1D through and including the EOS 1DMKIII & 1DsMKIII, and with each new camera I became increasingly disgusted with the over filtered files until I couldn't hack it any longer. :thumbdown: Plus, in direct contrast to your opinion, I dispised the Canon 24-70/2.8 from it's inception right through all 3 copies I owned :thumbdown::thumbdown: ... in fact, it resides on my top ten list of lenses I "loved to hate" ... :ROTFL: Where I have no such feelings for the Nikon 24-70/2.8 I now use. :thumbup: I'd agree with you concerning the 70-200/2.8s ... but I don't use that focal length zoom very often ... and have now found the Sony APO version to be better than both Canon/Nikon ... at least my specific copy of it is.:thumbs:
Leica 35mm has always been the pinnicle ... but for me a 35mm DSLR HAS to be AF for the work I do ... so Leica remains high in regard, and low in use ... which does not fit my business plan at all. :wtf:
Different strokes for different folks.
I guess I am with fotoz here: I believe the opposite, some better lenses and some worse lenses from each, Nikon and Canon, maybe Nikon slight advantage for (some) zoom-lenses and maybe Canon slight advantage for some primes.Throwing some more oil into this discussion about Nikon vs. Canon:
As a Nikon user for many years (D3 plus most of their high end new glass) I am still missing the fast primes.
Canon is offering these plus they are better in my opinion with their high resolution models (1DsMk3 and 5D2) than the Nikon D3X and A900). Resolution is not everything, for me it is also the way they calculate a "clean" photo at higher iSO and here I clearly prefer Canon. Plus I also refer their camera handling.
And also compared some lenses like the 24-70 from Canon and Nikon which I currently both own - although the Canon is a far older design, it outperforms overall the new Nikon lens. Same for the classical 2.8/70-200.
So this "Nikon lenses are better than Canon" is pure storytelling or in best case personal feeling and preference, which of course is important and if someone has these preferences and is happy than fine!
In the end of the day both can not hold up against Leica glass, but I think this was clear from the beginning and the question is if it is not better to just have any good lens as compared to none (from Leica).
I prefer handling and IQ of Nikon, but I agree, probably also a matter of taste and if you are happy with Canon and I am happy with Nikon than we are all fine.
Dale Allyn
New member
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Completely true, but some gear you like more than other^^ My favorite line here.
The photo is the goal, not the camera (well, sort of
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
I also gave up on the 24-70L after 3 copies. I have a 24-105L which although inferior in every way as a lens, is actually sharp and focuses where I tell it to. I use primes for anything important these days..
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Interesting, as my 24-70L is perfect. And I compare it to the Nikkor 24-70 and prefer the build quality of the Canon, the IQ (less vignetting and razor sharp) and the handling (which is subjective impression of course).
Hm.... so they seem to have different quality levels for different parts of the world, as I bought mine in Austria???
KeithL
Well-known member
I see that Michael Reichmann has published a new article and "guessed" that the S2 + 70mm will sell for around $25,000 and the lenses will be $5,000 to $10,000 a pop.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/s2-pre.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/s2-pre.shtml
KeithL
Well-known member
Yes, and I said he said "guessed":angel:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Even 25 percent less is way too much.
Honestly my opinion for a S2 and 70mm should be 16k and not a penny more. Lenses 3500 tops. As I said many times it should be compared to about a H3 31 or P30 plus and maybe just a touch more. Basically the same sensor and 16k to me sound like the proper number. Than compare that too d3x pricing and it is double which I don't think it should be. This is a tweener camera and should be priced in a tweener area and 25k is just cutting your throat. Not a chance in hell would I pay that no matter how good it is. Scary thing is i am one of there prime target shooters and those prices are not even close. This is survival time get people in the door than worry about profits later AFTER the system establishes itself. If I sound hard on Leica you damn right I am. And if that is the price I will be writing a LONG letter to Dr Kaufman. Sorry Leica fans and i am one of them but that kind of pricing is completely out of line to the market. MY OPINION which won't matter in the end. Frankly by the time they release this they will get smoked by someone else. I got a dozen donuts on that one.
Honestly my opinion for a S2 and 70mm should be 16k and not a penny more. Lenses 3500 tops. As I said many times it should be compared to about a H3 31 or P30 plus and maybe just a touch more. Basically the same sensor and 16k to me sound like the proper number. Than compare that too d3x pricing and it is double which I don't think it should be. This is a tweener camera and should be priced in a tweener area and 25k is just cutting your throat. Not a chance in hell would I pay that no matter how good it is. Scary thing is i am one of there prime target shooters and those prices are not even close. This is survival time get people in the door than worry about profits later AFTER the system establishes itself. If I sound hard on Leica you damn right I am. And if that is the price I will be writing a LONG letter to Dr Kaufman. Sorry Leica fans and i am one of them but that kind of pricing is completely out of line to the market. MY OPINION which won't matter in the end. Frankly by the time they release this they will get smoked by someone else. I got a dozen donuts on that one.
You know what, I read the MR article on LL also, and my first impressions were 1) there was really nothing we have not already discussed at some greater length here with input from David and others that also handled the new S2; and 2) while his speculation over the pricing may be more "Leica-ish", that is the one of the main points we all have debated for some time, offering our thoughts on how this may play out.....$25k is way over the top for the body, and $5-10k per lens is not going to have many buyers. Period.
All of that could change, but the folks that might/would/could be the target for this system are not going to be spending that kind of money, even if it lives up to or surpasses some of our speculations. I could be very wrong on this, but as another "target" for this system, I already have a pretty good idea of how much I will be willing to spend, and the numbers in the article are way, way over the top for me. Based on what we are seeing in the marketplace today, $15k for body and 70mm lens seems like the right price point, and with all of the supposed efficiencies of design in the new lenses, Guy's $3,500 would be the top end in my thinking also. Maybe a bit more for the T/S or the planned zoom, but only if they knock it out of the park with resolution and such.
So, I will freely admit that at the prices MR is "guessing", the S2 drops off of my list really fast, and I would bet the lists of others also, especially those that already have solid MF systems now, as well as those with a lot vested in 35mm DSLRs.
I love the glass. I love the image capture capability. I am not thrilled by the past service, nor the plethora of imperfections of things at release. I am totally put off by the too high pricing ideas. If Leica wants this to be a camera for the working pros, they need to make this affordable to the working pros, and not just a handful of folks that have been able to command really high rates....in years past. Today, and the present economy, which is looking to hang around for a while, demands a much more sober approach to equipment costs for those working at it, as our businesses are not just booming along as they may have been before. Leica could help themselves a whole lot by pricing the S2 and lenses in today's perspective, and then raise prices as the market allows. I doubt too many would complain with that approach, but stratospheric pricing just because they are Leica and think they can is not going to cover those investments made for a very, very long time. Just more opinion.
LJ
All of that could change, but the folks that might/would/could be the target for this system are not going to be spending that kind of money, even if it lives up to or surpasses some of our speculations. I could be very wrong on this, but as another "target" for this system, I already have a pretty good idea of how much I will be willing to spend, and the numbers in the article are way, way over the top for me. Based on what we are seeing in the marketplace today, $15k for body and 70mm lens seems like the right price point, and with all of the supposed efficiencies of design in the new lenses, Guy's $3,500 would be the top end in my thinking also. Maybe a bit more for the T/S or the planned zoom, but only if they knock it out of the park with resolution and such.
So, I will freely admit that at the prices MR is "guessing", the S2 drops off of my list really fast, and I would bet the lists of others also, especially those that already have solid MF systems now, as well as those with a lot vested in 35mm DSLRs.
I love the glass. I love the image capture capability. I am not thrilled by the past service, nor the plethora of imperfections of things at release. I am totally put off by the too high pricing ideas. If Leica wants this to be a camera for the working pros, they need to make this affordable to the working pros, and not just a handful of folks that have been able to command really high rates....in years past. Today, and the present economy, which is looking to hang around for a while, demands a much more sober approach to equipment costs for those working at it, as our businesses are not just booming along as they may have been before. Leica could help themselves a whole lot by pricing the S2 and lenses in today's perspective, and then raise prices as the market allows. I doubt too many would complain with that approach, but stratospheric pricing just because they are Leica and think they can is not going to cover those investments made for a very, very long time. Just more opinion.
LJ
KeithL
Well-known member
What's interesting is that MR knows a brand new H3D11-31 goes for €10.000 and yet he still thinks the S2 price will be around $25,000.
carstenw
Active member
To be honest, given that Leica's only previous statement on the matter significantly undercuts his guess, I wonder what his motivation for guessing so high is? His site gets a large number of high-end readers, and then he throws out a price like that out of nowhere. It just feels wrong. Maybe subconsciously he doesn't want to see the S2 compete well with his Mamiya/P45+/P65+?
In his position, I would not even have guessed, simply restated Leica's comments and left it at that. It doesn't sit well with me that he did that.
Anyway, all that is left to do is to wait and see.
Carsten,
In a way, he sort of had to put out some price, as much of the rest of his article was spent talking about who the target buyer is and why. The $25k number (and the others) that he punted out there sort of coincide with part of what Leica mentioned earlier about coming in at 20k euros or so, but the other part was about being competitive with Hasselblad. The one thing that folks keep comparing things to is the now, low entry price of the H3DII-31, when the 37.5MP S2 is probably closer to the H3DII-39 for the pixel density of the sensor, and that price is a bit more than the -31 being offered right now. The S2 is closer to the -31 for the smaller sensor size, microlenses and higher ISO capability (proposed) than it is to the -39, but actually is really is somewhere in between.
It did strike me as odd, given all the discussion here, over what folks are thinking about. The other thing that underscored this is how his forum does not tolerate speculation and rumors. The S2 is not a rumor. Its pricing is unknown, and only hints we have actually are lower, based on what Leica has commented on over several months. Plus, as mentioned, prices on the competitor landscape in MF have dropped a fair bit. Would Leica ignore this? As I said above, nothing really new learned from his "review" and marketing thoughts that has not been hashed several times here already. Not putting MR down, but wish he would have spent more time talking about the camera, the lenses, and how things fit into the market....at least from his perspective.
LJ
In a way, he sort of had to put out some price, as much of the rest of his article was spent talking about who the target buyer is and why. The $25k number (and the others) that he punted out there sort of coincide with part of what Leica mentioned earlier about coming in at 20k euros or so, but the other part was about being competitive with Hasselblad. The one thing that folks keep comparing things to is the now, low entry price of the H3DII-31, when the 37.5MP S2 is probably closer to the H3DII-39 for the pixel density of the sensor, and that price is a bit more than the -31 being offered right now. The S2 is closer to the -31 for the smaller sensor size, microlenses and higher ISO capability (proposed) than it is to the -39, but actually is really is somewhere in between.
It did strike me as odd, given all the discussion here, over what folks are thinking about. The other thing that underscored this is how his forum does not tolerate speculation and rumors. The S2 is not a rumor. Its pricing is unknown, and only hints we have actually are lower, based on what Leica has commented on over several months. Plus, as mentioned, prices on the competitor landscape in MF have dropped a fair bit. Would Leica ignore this? As I said above, nothing really new learned from his "review" and marketing thoughts that has not been hashed several times here already. Not putting MR down, but wish he would have spent more time talking about the camera, the lenses, and how things fit into the market....at least from his perspective.
LJ
You know, an interesting side bar to the rotten economy and people holding on to their gear is that a lot of us are squeezing more and more out of existing technology.
It takes time to really get to know this sophisticated gear and all the variables that can improve IQ. In addition I've been delighted with the tweaks that the manufacturers have instituted ... even Leica with the recent additions to the original M8.
Maybe we get caught up in the rat race of "New/Now/New" and never really get a chance to get the most out of what we have.
It makes you wonder what would really be possible given more time with a system.
It takes time to really get to know this sophisticated gear and all the variables that can improve IQ. In addition I've been delighted with the tweaks that the manufacturers have instituted ... even Leica with the recent additions to the original M8.
Maybe we get caught up in the rat race of "New/Now/New" and never really get a chance to get the most out of what we have.
It makes you wonder what would really be possible given more time with a system.
While Leica indicated that they would be competitive at the time the S2 was pre-announced, they probably didn't expect to see MFDB prices drop so dramatically since then. Development of the S2 and various (initial) materials supply contracts for it (thus initial lot costs) were also started/inked well before the global economy went in the toilet.
MR was/is a long-term Leica (M) user and while I don't see him having any axe to grind, I do see him, like many of us, simply shaking hsi head at what Solms is doing re: prices in any market, let alone todays.
On the S2 I think he, like the rest of us, simply applied 1) existing (and vague) pricing statements by Leica + 2) Leica's historical strategy of uber-premium pricing regardless of market conditions + 3) guess work and 4) MAYBE some insider industry chatter he couldn't label as such to arrive at his numbers.
Until such time as Solms updates the pricing info on the S2, that's all he and the rest of us have to go one. Right now, his numbers as good as anyone's.
Now, Leica being Leica, to think that Leica is going to ski down the same new MFDB pricing curve as Hassy and Phamiya upon the S2's release (if it is released) I see as wishful thinking based more on hope/desire/marketing logic vs. the reality of Leica strategic history.
They also need to be careful. As much folks will argue "...they're different markets..", etc., introducing new uber-premium M lenses for up to $10K a pop, and an M8.2 for ~$6K and then dropping an new uber-premium AF MF large-sensor kit on the market (that will sell in likely in lower volumes than most M gear) at anywhere near the new competitive prices WILL get people asking just what in the hell they're paying for on the M side.
MR was/is a long-term Leica (M) user and while I don't see him having any axe to grind, I do see him, like many of us, simply shaking hsi head at what Solms is doing re: prices in any market, let alone todays.
On the S2 I think he, like the rest of us, simply applied 1) existing (and vague) pricing statements by Leica + 2) Leica's historical strategy of uber-premium pricing regardless of market conditions + 3) guess work and 4) MAYBE some insider industry chatter he couldn't label as such to arrive at his numbers.
Until such time as Solms updates the pricing info on the S2, that's all he and the rest of us have to go one. Right now, his numbers as good as anyone's.
Now, Leica being Leica, to think that Leica is going to ski down the same new MFDB pricing curve as Hassy and Phamiya upon the S2's release (if it is released) I see as wishful thinking based more on hope/desire/marketing logic vs. the reality of Leica strategic history.
They also need to be careful. As much folks will argue "...they're different markets..", etc., introducing new uber-premium M lenses for up to $10K a pop, and an M8.2 for ~$6K and then dropping an new uber-premium AF MF large-sensor kit on the market (that will sell in likely in lower volumes than most M gear) at anywhere near the new competitive prices WILL get people asking just what in the hell they're paying for on the M side.
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more with this Marc. I've had my kit over a year and still learning it's nuances.