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!
Official USA Pricing for Leica S2
- Thread starter dfarkas
- Start date
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Sorry for my ignorance, but why suddenly all these worries about DNG? It seems to work fine with the DMR, the M8, the Pentaxes and the Ricohs. Actually, from most photographers, It's mostly been seen as an advantage, or at least that's my impression. Why should it suddenly become a disadvantage?
Yes, I know; tweaking and tweaking and tweaking and tweaking, but my impression of the S2 is that it's supposed to be an easy-to-use camera with a big sensor and high quality optics in a DSLR body. If I bought it, and felt that my files needed tweaking and tweaking and tweaking and tweaking, I would surely be disappointed
Yes, I know; tweaking and tweaking and tweaking and tweaking, but my impression of the S2 is that it's supposed to be an easy-to-use camera with a big sensor and high quality optics in a DSLR body. If I bought it, and felt that my files needed tweaking and tweaking and tweaking and tweaking, I would surely be disappointed
Last edited:
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
This discussion reminds me about the discussion around the launch of the Olympus E-1. It was too little, too late, too expensive and what did we need all that high quality glass for on a camera with just 5MP and three focus points when others make good glass too.... and so on.
Some of those Zuiko lenses are actually more expensive (longer, yes, but more expensive) than some of the lenses offered for the S2. Still some naive, ignorant photographers bought them, and used them on their dinky E-1s. Did we hear many complaints? From those who didn't buy it, and never planned to, yes, a lot, and some of them still do. But from those who actually bought the far too expensive E-1 with the far too expensive lenses, I can't remember that I heard a single complaint, but then, my memory is rather selective at times
Did Olympus think they were going to conquer the world with the E-1? Probably not, and they didn't. Will Leica conquer the world with the S2? Absolutely not, but If I went on an expedition to Mars or to Lhasa, I know what camera I would choose, if money was no objection. On Mars as well as in Lhasa, only one thing counts: the gear that I bring with me has to work, and churn out the best image quality possible, come snow, come rain, come flood or revolutions. If the S2 can do that, it's a winner for some people.
And while I'm at it:
For years now, and particularly since the launch of the M8, Leica has been blamed for selling yesteryear's technology at inflated prices. Now they have responded, and launched a camera and a system that is current technology and a unique combination of sensor size and packaging. So, they have something that nobody else has. Isn't it then a little bit optimistic to expect that it shouldn't also be priced higher than whatever competition there is?
Of course very few people can afford it, but that goes for most of the high end gear. If I need the ultimate optical quality and an MF quality sensor and I'm going out in the rain, are there any other choices out there? If the answer is no, and I were in Leica's shoes, I would certainly not sell this stuff cheap.
I, as anybody else, could well wish that the S2 system was priced lower, particularly the body. But it is what it is, and if it does what it does, and does it well, I see a system that may become indispensable for some.
Just my thoughts...
Some of those Zuiko lenses are actually more expensive (longer, yes, but more expensive) than some of the lenses offered for the S2. Still some naive, ignorant photographers bought them, and used them on their dinky E-1s. Did we hear many complaints? From those who didn't buy it, and never planned to, yes, a lot, and some of them still do. But from those who actually bought the far too expensive E-1 with the far too expensive lenses, I can't remember that I heard a single complaint, but then, my memory is rather selective at times
Did Olympus think they were going to conquer the world with the E-1? Probably not, and they didn't. Will Leica conquer the world with the S2? Absolutely not, but If I went on an expedition to Mars or to Lhasa, I know what camera I would choose, if money was no objection. On Mars as well as in Lhasa, only one thing counts: the gear that I bring with me has to work, and churn out the best image quality possible, come snow, come rain, come flood or revolutions. If the S2 can do that, it's a winner for some people.
And while I'm at it:
For years now, and particularly since the launch of the M8, Leica has been blamed for selling yesteryear's technology at inflated prices. Now they have responded, and launched a camera and a system that is current technology and a unique combination of sensor size and packaging. So, they have something that nobody else has. Isn't it then a little bit optimistic to expect that it shouldn't also be priced higher than whatever competition there is?
Of course very few people can afford it, but that goes for most of the high end gear. If I need the ultimate optical quality and an MF quality sensor and I'm going out in the rain, are there any other choices out there? If the answer is no, and I were in Leica's shoes, I would certainly not sell this stuff cheap.
I, as anybody else, could well wish that the S2 system was priced lower, particularly the body. But it is what it is, and if it does what it does, and does it well, I see a system that may become indispensable for some.
Just my thoughts...
Last edited:
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Exactly. YOU shouldn't need to tweak and tweak because the software processing it should be specifically tuned to create a nearly perfect image requiring as little work as possible. Leica makes amazing glass, and I'm sure the camera body will be great, but it's still just a Kodak sensor and each generation of Kodak sensors (or any brand/make/model sensors) have quirks and oddities. Addressing these specific sensor characteristics (noise characteristics, long exposure and high ISO characteristics, micro lenses or not, spectral response, tendency to moire, reaction to ambient temperature, propensity to cross-over or drift in shadow color etc) MUST be done in the raw processing software if the goal is absolute max quality. This is all done (or isn't done) in the background without your knowledge so that when you open the file it looks "right" from the get go with natural accurate color and minimal obtrusive noise.Sorry for my ignorance, but why suddenly all these worries about DNG? It seems to work fine with the DMR, the M8, the Pentaxes and the Ricohs. Actually, from most photographers, It's mostly been seen as an advantage, or at least that's my impression. Why should it suddenly become a disadvantage?
Yes, I know; tweaking and tweaking and tweaking and tweaking, but my impression of the S2, is that it's supposed to be an easy-to-use camera with a big sensor and high quality optics in a DSLR body. If I bought it, and felt that my files needed tweaking and tweaking and tweaking and tweaking, I would surely be disappointed
Phase One put a lot of effort into making M8 files sing, and even OEM'd a version with Leica specific to the M8 along with color profiles meant to help Leica address the IR issue they had with the M8. Put an M8 file through LR (generic support through DNG) and then through C1 (specifically tweaked DNG support) and see the difference I'm talking about.
Also, DNG support does not generally include the sorts of proprietary datasets used by companies like Phase to pass information from the back to the raw processor to get the most out of the file (especially as regards DR and noise). Two examples from Phase is the ambient temperature and the black-cal capture. This sort of tweaking requires integration of the hardware, firmware, and software to be effective.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
PeterA
Well-known member
Hi Jack,Pete:
So are you buying one of the first ones available, and with a complete set of glass?
Long stor short - given my recent 'experiences' with Solms service of my M8 - broke down day one after a two month turnaround - with another case of total system failure
- I would have to say NO WAY JOSEGive it a year to get fixed and become bug free IF it actually works in the first place and I might consider it -only because I think it will be a better ergonomic camera than anything from current MF camera land.
The price is not an issue for me - it is wether it works - weird that anyone has to worry about such issues isnt it - but once bitten twice shy ..have had a bad run with M8/Hy6 experinces and not in a hurry to 'trust' any company anymore.
I suspect it's a manifestation of the economic downturn that many of us are feeling. A couple of years back I don't think you'd be hearing this much of an outcry. It's a sign of the times...
carstenw
Active member
The importance of many PhDs and hundreds of man hours can be overstated. Both RPP and RD have users which believe them to yield superior results to C1, and both are one-man shops. Rainer Viertlböck uses RPP, for example.
Let's see what Leica can come up with before damning their results, shall we?
carstenw
Active member
I am sure that you are not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with DNG as a format. That would be a very silly statement, since it is simply a container for data, with provision for maker-specific information for whatever you need. In that case, I can only conclude that Hasselblad couldn't pull it off, not for reasons to do with DNG, but for... erm... other reasons.
carstenw
Active member
Have you read the DNG spec? DNG provides for whatever you want. Of course, if someone writes special fields, a generalized processor will not be able to take advantage of it, but this is even more the case with proprietary formats.
jonoslack
Active member
Why always compare with lightroom? As Carsten points out, there are other converters which are preferred - RPP may be a dog to use, but it certainly gets more detail out of the M8 and other cameras.
Also - support for the M8 is not 'generic support through DNG' - in both ACR and Aperture and RPP the camera specific information in the DNG container is addressed - very successfully in Aperture (IMHO of course). I use Capture one for many cameras . . . but not for the M8.
The implication that DNG is inferior is disingenuous, as is the dissing of Kodak sensors, which, together with their quirks seem to me produce the most natural and satisfying results.
A lot of this stuff is subjective, and a lot of it is a trade-off. There are many arguments against proprietary raw, and very few against DNG, which, as Carsten points out, is a container file and will allow as much camera specific information as required.
of course the question is not which data container you use but the extend of support of the data.
IMO all camera makers could use DNG as raw format but still could add proprietary data in the files to take adavantage of it in the own manufacturers raw software.
My reading is that this is what the discussion is about - the difference of 1.) generic DNG support, 2.) a tweaked/optimized support of raw data and 3.) the support of dedicated proprietary data in the files.
ad 3.) this applies to manufacturers software only of course
ad 2.) this is why e.g. C1 is superior for a lot of cameras (often better as the respective manufacturer softwares). And this is why ACR/LR sucks as they treat all cameras more or less in the same way; a rough tweaking might be there but it's not very successful regarding detail extraction, colours and NR at high ISO.
why always compare to Lightroom? Because it's the software that will be shipped with the S2.
RD and RPP indeed might be better occasionally when working on single or few files.
But I doubt that anyone would use them as tethering software (do they support hot folder?) or to process a high volume of files.
Maybe Leica will do a lot of pre proccessing in the raw files so that they will be a bit independent of a dedicated raw software. We'll see.
Graham Mitchell
New member
+1
It seems to be a widely misunderstood issue - many people are convinced that the native raw file somehow includes pristine data that is lost when put in another container, and that raw data is completely unaltered from the sensor readout stage. Just two common misconceptions I often see on the forums.
Agreed - that would be best solution.
not sure if I understand it right... Phase backs record the ambient temperature (so the temperature of the sensor in the moment of capture) and the processing in C1 refers to these data?
So the warmer the chip the more some NR (or so) is applied?
This is a really interesting discussion because it seems to be a microcosmic view of the industry with just about every area covered to some degree or another.
IMO, some of the simpler statements seem to ring the truest.
Like how the state of the economy affects this launch in general (perhaps not folks like Peter A, who makes decisions based on other considerations : -). 2 years ago, my dealer would have already had my deposit on the S2 (well, maybe not, since 2 years ago I was struggling with the M8 debacle). But that M8 issue aside ... that was then, this is now ... financially speaking.
I also think Jorgen hit the nail on the head in saying " a system that may become indispensable for some time to come". For quite a few shooters, the megapixel race is over, and feature set is the name of the game. So far, it's hard to fault this S2 camera for feature set. What would worry me a bit is the advent of glaring oversights like multi-point focusing making my S2 a less "real world" functional 23K unit. But that is also true for my current 20K Hasselblad H3D cameras which cannot be separated from their backs. It's the price of an integrated system.
Software is a sticky subject. Firmware and software is the name of the game here .... and discussions that leave out the firmware upgrades in favor of Lightroom or some other general use RAW software seem only half the story. If manufacturers turned over all of their proprietary innovations and data to a company like Adobe, they would be at the mercy of a 3rd party company when it came to firmware/software co-ordination. That sounds like a big cock-up just waiting to happen.
I also think we cannot under-estimate the ingenuity of the collective. Users are pretty innovative themselves ... witness the profiles that were written for the M8. I use some Lightroom Plug-ins written for the M8 by some user for example.
The trump cards that Leica holds are the lenses. In general (and most certainly in my opinion) my M8s hold their own against the very latest, greatest from anyone mostly because of the optics. It's saying something when 8X10 prints from a flawed 10 meg crop frame camera generally and consistently look better than those from a 24 meg FF 35mm DSLR sporting Zeiss optics. If the S2 follows suit, then we'll see if this thing is really "too expensive".
IMO, some of the simpler statements seem to ring the truest.
Like how the state of the economy affects this launch in general (perhaps not folks like Peter A, who makes decisions based on other considerations : -). 2 years ago, my dealer would have already had my deposit on the S2 (well, maybe not, since 2 years ago I was struggling with the M8 debacle). But that M8 issue aside ... that was then, this is now ... financially speaking.
I also think Jorgen hit the nail on the head in saying " a system that may become indispensable for some time to come". For quite a few shooters, the megapixel race is over, and feature set is the name of the game. So far, it's hard to fault this S2 camera for feature set. What would worry me a bit is the advent of glaring oversights like multi-point focusing making my S2 a less "real world" functional 23K unit. But that is also true for my current 20K Hasselblad H3D cameras which cannot be separated from their backs. It's the price of an integrated system.
Software is a sticky subject. Firmware and software is the name of the game here .... and discussions that leave out the firmware upgrades in favor of Lightroom or some other general use RAW software seem only half the story. If manufacturers turned over all of their proprietary innovations and data to a company like Adobe, they would be at the mercy of a 3rd party company when it came to firmware/software co-ordination. That sounds like a big cock-up just waiting to happen.
I also think we cannot under-estimate the ingenuity of the collective. Users are pretty innovative themselves ... witness the profiles that were written for the M8. I use some Lightroom Plug-ins written for the M8 by some user for example.
The trump cards that Leica holds are the lenses. In general (and most certainly in my opinion) my M8s hold their own against the very latest, greatest from anyone mostly because of the optics. It's saying something when 8X10 prints from a flawed 10 meg crop frame camera generally and consistently look better than those from a 24 meg FF 35mm DSLR sporting Zeiss optics. If the S2 follows suit, then we'll see if this thing is really "too expensive".
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Thomas
Actually - Adobe supports camera specific information in a lot of DNG files:
M8, Panasonic G1, Ricoh, Leica digilux are ones I know about. Apple and others also do this for many file types. This consists of colour calibration information but with the G1 it also includes lens specific information.
I think that you can be pretty sure that if Lightroom is being bundled with the S2 then they will be supporting camera specific information. I'm pretty sure that Capture One and Apple and RPP will also be doing the same.
My personal feeling about Adobe RAW support is that it's very very good for the common professional cameras (Canon, Nikon especially), but nothing like so good for the lesser cameras (Sony A900, M8 in my experience).
Clearly, Phase Files in Capture one are going to be as well addressed as Nikon files in NX and Olympus files in Studio, and aren't Phase users lucky in that C1 is such a good piece of software. It is the best piece of software for some cameras - but not for others.
DNG is something which can be of help to all of us. It cannot be the best solution to be locked into proprietary sofware, however good it is, and for many of us who need to process and catalogue large numbers of files efficiently the DAM software (lightroom and aperture) present solutions which are hard to resist.
jonoslack
Active member
Absolutely . . . but don't write off the effect of that flawed Kodak sensor - a variant of it occurred in the E1, and whatever other shortcomings the files did (and still do) look lovely - The S2 is going to have another Kodak sensor, and hopefully that will add the little bit of magic found in the M8 files (which, from Douglas and other's writings, I suspect other manufacturers whisk away in a quest for noise free high ISO).The trump cards that Leica holds are the lenses. In general (and most certainly in my opinion) my M8s hold their own against the very latest, greatest from anyone mostly because of the optics. It's saying something when 8X10 prints from a flawed 10 meg crop frame camera generally and consistently look better than those from a 24 meg FF 35mm DSLR sporting Zeiss optics. If the S2 follows suit, then we'll see if this thing is really "too expensive".
The sensor/in-camera processor performance is indeed another element that's as of yet an unknown. If higher ISOs are achieved without the filter schmeer that other makers employed to get there ... it'll be quite an achievement. Just get it clean to ISO 1250 and I'd be a happy snapper. Wish the M8 had that ability.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
First Peter the prices are not even close so where that comes from is beyond me. It's 34k for a S2 with lens and 22k for a Phase or Hassy. Now correct me if I am wrong but that is 12 thousand dollar difference that is not what I would call comparable in the slightest and given no track record than you follow your comments up with this
Long stor short - given my recent 'experiences' with Solms service of my M8 - broke down day one after a two month turnaround - with another case of total system failure - I would have to say NO WAY JOSE
I really wonder why your on my *** when you yourself are not buying one. Sorry but I am just pointing out that it is a overpriced item compared value to other systems. Frankly at this point I really don't give a crap about it and why I am all of a sudden the Leica basher. No Peter I'm a realist and know value of the gear and in my view it is overpriced by a long shot but in all fairness I am completely out of this conversation and sick of the backlash from it. People want to waste or spend there money on items that are not making any sense than fine with me . Go for it but don't want to hear the crying when it is no better than systems that cost a lot less and everything else that goes along with Leica . You forget I was the first to get a M8 and DMR and had more issues than Bayer aspirin makes pills but of course no one knows that end of it. Bottom line I need stuff that works on a hourly basis and has something of meat to back it up. To many Hassy , Phase, Sinar and Leaf systems out there in place right now. :banghead:
jonoslack
Active member
I thought it was 27 and a half - am I missing something? (what's 6k amongst friends anyway
Jano, I know that camera raw supports specific cameras. They even provide 2 (internal) profiles for both tungsten and daylight for each camera. I am just not convinced by their efforts and results. File management and workflow is certainly very good in LR (this is why it is so popular IMO) but IQ wise ACR/LR is a paper tiger to me. So I'd probably take Aperture, Bibble, RD or RPP rather than Adobe raw conversion. Fortunately I have no reason to do so by now.