Official USA Pricing for Leica S2

[Guy Mancuso]

I can always tell a post from Guy, as their is no doubt they're will always be the word 'there' in their.

Well they screwed up the english language. What the hell where they thinking throwing me a curve ball. I seriously think i have a mental block on those two words.

Now if they were correct would you actually believe it was my post.

 

[fotografz]

Thanks bud i was counting on you to correct me if I was off. Reason i usually qualify the Hassy talk to I believe or something like check to make sure. LOL

BTW main reason I shoot the 28mm also is the crop factor

Well, a forum member was kind enough to inform me of an error in my answer to you Guy. The HCD/28mm produces a field of view of 31mm on the H3D/31 ... not 35mm.

I forgot that the HCD lenses have a smaller image circle so the 1.3X crop factor does not apply like it does with all the other HC lenses.

 

[carstenw]

28mm is not the focal length of the lens? I would be ultra-surprised if that were the case. I have never in my life seen a serious lens with an equivalent focal length written on it, just compacts. Whether it can cover FF or not doesn't change the focal length, and the image that you crop down to still represents that, here 1.3x on the 31MP sensors.

Where is David Grover these days? On vacation?

 

[fotografz]

The 35mm format has been existing for ages. So other formats have. I think the S2 is not aimed at photgraphers that need the highest resolution (artists, high end product ...). I rather think a S3 or S4 (as long as we will ever see those) will focus on other features than resolution.

I tend to agree with this. Basically, the S2 is simply a different form factor ... much like 645 was when most MF cameras were 6X6, 6X7, or bigger.

It just provides us with choices. High meg 35mm DSLR, this "tweener" S2, or the big guns with up to 60 meg and an even larger sensor.

40 meg is a lot of resolution, more than most will ever need.

I also still contend that an enormous amount of improvement is possible as software and firmware technology advances. That aspect will keep the S2 going IF Leica pays attention to it. Since they are not tied to an outside company like the DMR was, there is no reason to believe that Leica won't keep the S2 moving forward with tweaks. Hasselblad has vastly improved my current H system hardware performance with software and firmware improvements ... very easy to do with a so called "closed" system like the S2 is.

The ace in the hole for Leica is the optics ... I am continuously delighted by what a measly 10 meg., crop frame M8 is able to produce even compared to my FF, state of the art 35mm DSLRs when it comes to the actual end product.

If that performance ratio is anywhere similar for the S2, it will bark with the big MFD dogs and then some when it comes to the end product ... and the end product is all that matters.

None of that mitigates the fact that it's something I wish I could afford and justify, but can't right now ... and maybe never will.

Well, I'm close to retirement, so I shouldn't say "never". If I sold everthing (big PITA) I could probably do it. It'd be a nice way to thrift down the inventory of stuff I've collected over the years and settle in on one system for each form factor.

But quite frankly I'm more interested in the impending M9 than the S2. :clap:

 

[FromJapan]

Perhaps Leica isn't depending on the American market?

http://retail-sector.suite101.com/article.cfm/millionaires_in_china_boost_retail_market

Kumar

 

[Guy Mancuso]

28mm is not the focal length of the lens? I would be ultra-surprised if that were the case. I have never in my life seen a serious lens with an equivalent focal length written on it, just compacts. Whether it can cover FF or not doesn't change the focal length, and the image that you crop down to still represents that, here 1.3x on the 31MP sensors.

Where is David Grover these days? On vacation?

Well in MF the focal length written is the number for a Full Frame 645 which as we all know is not really true with any of the systems because none are a true 645 FF film size. There is always some crop in it. My back is a 1.3 crop so it is really a 36mm( I think , need to look at that calculator again) focal length for my back . Now to get a equivalent of a 35mm framing I think is is like a 24mm. This is the case with any MF system, it depends on the crop factor.

Now if your saying it may not be a true 28mm by definition of what is written on the lens well that maybe true most lenses are rounded up or down to some whole number. That goes for everything in all systems including 35mm. But that really is a moot point, that has been going on since the beginning. It truly maybe a 27.5 or 28.9 focal length.

When you buy the lens you buy a 28mm even though your crop factor for each back will change the field of view. Yes it's a PITA to convert all the time for your own back. In this case Leica 70mm is considered the normal but in MF the 80mm is. Talk about confusing the issue even more.

 

[Lars]

28mm is not the focal length of the lens? I would be ultra-surprised if that were the case. I have never in my life seen a serious lens with an equivalent focal length written on it, just compacts.

That's actually quite common among large format lenses. lens designs are aimed for a certain focal length but might be one or a few millimeters off. This can for example be seen in Schneider's published specs.

 

[carstenw]

Lars, the Hasselblad 28mm might not be exactly 28mm, but that is not what I was trying to get at.

I stand corrected. I just browsed Hasselblad's website, and the HCD 28mm lens is *effectively* 28mm on a 36,8x49,1mm sensor, i.e. the H3DII-50 and H3DII-39. This means that in reality it is a 25mm lens, roughly, but a 28mm on the cameras which Hasselblad last year called full-frame, i.e. 36,8x49,1mm.

Marking a lens with an effective focal length rather than an actual focal length puts Hasselblad in the same company as the compact camera manufacturers. I don't know anyone else who uses these dubious marketing strategies. I wonder why they decided to do that? I guess the 35-90mm zoom is actually also wider than that in reality.

http://www.hasselblad.com/media/1342803/uk_h3dii39_datasheet_v4.pdf

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Perhaps Leica isn't depending on the American market?

http://retail-sector.suite101.com/article.cfm/millionaires_in_china_boost_retail_market

Kumar

The potential for Leica in China is probably huge. Not only are there lots of people with money, but buying expensive brands is very much in vogue. Nokia has been into that market for many years. Here's a model that sells well among rich people in Asia:

http://www.nokia.com.hk/find-products-en/products/nokia-8800-gold-arte

Price? Around $2,500. That's twothousandfivehundred American dollars, and the specs are rather mediocre.

I remember reading a comparison of luxury cars here in Bangkok a few years ago. One of them was the Volvo S80, which was the cheapest one by a healthy margin. Was that counted as an advantage? Not at all. The opposite was the case. In that market segment, a lower price means lower status in many parts of Asia.

Will those people buy a Leica S2? Some of them will, and I guess we should be happy about that. Just like those who buy a D3X with the 200mm f/2.0 to take photos of their cats and dogs, they help increasing the production volume thus making high end photo equipment cheaper for the rest of us.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

They can't shrink the pixel size further and further, ...

Yes, they can. That's what all sensor manufacturers have been doing for a decade now. Technology will just keep getting better. The limitation will be the lenses, but that's the part where Leica shines anyway, so hopefully there are no serious worries.

Another thing is that there is probably a limit with regards to how many megapixels are needed, even for high end pro cameras. The improvements in future models will probably be in other areas. There's probably no way around video. Like it or not, these technologies are converging, and photographers will have to adapt.

 

[Lars]

I just browsed Hasselblad's website, and the HCD 28mm lens is *effectively* 28mm on a 36,8x49,1mm sensor, i.e. the H3DII-50 and H3DII-39. This means that in reality it is a 25mm lens, roughly, but a 28mm on the cameras which Hasselblad last year called full-frame, i.e. 36,8x49,1mm.

Aaargh! I wish lens manufacturers would use "angle of view" instead of "effective focal length". Hehe.

 

[carstenw]

Yes, agree! It would take a short while to get used to, and then never again confusion! Although... angle of view for which sensor size? Argh. A table on each lens?

 

[Christopher]

Yes, they can. That's what all sensor manufacturers have been doing for a decade now. Technology will just keep getting better. The limitation will be the lenses, but that's the part where Leica shines anyway, so hopefully there are no serious worries.

Another thing is that there is probably a limit with regards to how many megapixels are needed, even for high end pro cameras. The improvements in future models will probably be in other areas. There's probably no way around video. Like it or not, these technologies are converging, and photographers will have to adapt.

Not if you stick with delsa and kodak. We won't see any new brilliant sensors from whem, perhaps one more step in a few years but that's probably it. I would say the future lies a lot more in CMOS like RED uses and not "old" CCD stuff. But than again we probably won't need any cameras anymore in the more distant future.

 

[cmb_]

That's actually quite common among large format lenses. lens designs are aimed for a certain focal length but might be one or a few millimeters off. This can for example be seen in Schneider's published specs.

This is true for Leica M lenses as well. On some M lenses there is a code number inscribed after the infinity mark which is a code to the actual focal length.

 

[carstenw]

Yup, Leica M 50mm lenses tend to actually be 52mm, for some reason.

 

[Bob]

Well, if they are a little long, then they can be shimmed, if short, then you need to grind metal.
-bob

 

[arashm]

Not if you stick with delsa and kodak. We won't see any new brilliant sensors from whem, perhaps one more step in a few years but that's probably it. I would say the future lies a lot more in CMOS like RED uses and not "old" CCD stuff. But than again we probably won't need any cameras anymore in the more distant future.

actually as a recent Sigma DP-1 owner, I'm surprised we haven't seen more from Sigma or for that matter anyone else.
A larger Foveon sensor or similar technology sensor could be absolutely amazing.
but I'm going OT, sorry
am

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Not if you stick with delsa and kodak. We won't see any new brilliant sensors from whem, perhaps one more step in a few years but that's probably it. I would say the future lies a lot more in CMOS like RED uses and not "old" CCD stuff. But than again we probably won't need any cameras anymore in the more distant future.

RED is obviously the key word when it comes to convergence. If Hasselblad and Phamiya doesn't respond to that challenge, they're history in ten years. The only way Leica can sneak around the problem, is to sell something that appears smaller, lighter and easier to use, which is what they've done. But even then, they will have to develop their offering in the future, and just more megapixels and/or lower noise probably won't cut it.

 

[fotografz]

RED is obviously the key word when it comes to convergence. If Hasselblad and Phamiya doesn't respond to that challenge, they're history in ten years. The only way Leica can sneak around the problem, is to sell something that appears smaller, lighter and easier to use, which is what they've done. But even then, they will have to develop their offering in the future, and just more megapixels and/or lower noise probably won't cut it.

I'm curious as to why the speculation that "convergence" is so critical to the future of these companies?

I grasp the fact that video features are all the rage right now, but I don't think that the disciplines required for motion work are all that easy to acquire, nor are the ancillary aspects of it.

If you think still still software is even slightly complex wait until you get involved with motion. Most people can barely handle the basics of Photoshop let alone Final Cut Pro. And you can pretty much toss your present computer and storage configuration while you're at it.

I'm also curious as to who's going to use a converged system?

Landscape photographers? There are so many super talented and highly dedicated wildlife cinematographers that are the target for RED, why would a dedicated still shooter add motion? The entire infrastructure of the still shooter would have to change ... and to what end?

Portrait Photographers? Can't think of anything more boring than a 10 minute short of someone's face. Warhole comes to mind :ROTFL:

Tabletop shooters? Sure some dual still/motion shooters already exist. None of them BUY the motion gear and required lighting, they rent it and hire tech people to run it, AND rarely edit anything themselves ... that's the job of the edit houses. Still tabletop work is often done using T/S systems (???)

Corporate shooters? Possibly, but most corporate motion work is for web sites. Sure don't need a RED outfit for that.

Wedding photographers? At the prices paid for wedding videos, it would take a lifetime to pay for a RED outfit.

I could go on, but I think my point is made.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

I agree, I am simply totally uninterested in using a "converged" system. I shoot still photography and have not the slightest interest in shooting video - or paying extra for a device that does. I don't even own a video camera.

Quentin