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

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
"We", meaning the current crop of grumpy, old men who are calling ourselves photographers, are totally uninterested in the convergent technology. On the other hand, the marketing, engineering and management staff who leave the universities now and in the future, and who will work for our clients in a year or five, and the photographers who studied at the same universities at the same time, will see the possibilities. Possibilities for better marketing, more efficient use of online media, cost saving etc.

Example:
I do a lot of industrial photography. Some of it is documentation of production processes for use in internal documentation, marketing and training of internal as well as customer staff. So far, I've had inquiries from two clients if I would be interested in doing videos in addition to photos of these processes. One of the clients is a Nikon user, and asked directly if I would be able to use a Nikon D300s for this.

For him there are cost savings having one person doing the whole process, and it simplifies his communication. For me, should I choose to accept the job, using an all Nikon system means large cost savings compared to buying a separate video camera. Yes, the software is a challenge, but those young, hungry photographers coming after us already know how to use that software. This is what they teach in universities these day. Luckily for me, I've already done some Flash animation, which makes it easier to adapt.

It's important to remember that, 15 years ago, almost all photographic work was published on some kind of printed media. Today, printed media are shrinking, while internet and other interactive media have opened up a huge, new potential for photography, video and animation. Since I'm a graphic designer as well as a photographer, I see the whole world changing under my feet.

Only four years ago, I was dragged into digital photography, kicking and screaming. Now, my attitude is that adapting is smarter than dying. It's great fun walking the streets of Hanoi with the Fuji and an 85mm, but I can't expect to make a living that way, not now and not in five years.

As for Hasselblad and Phamiya, they are solidly placed in the tiny, little market segment where bleeding edge technology may suddenly take over, simply because it makes sense from a conceptual as well as economical point of view. It may not happen overnight, but the change will come, just as laser and ink-jet printers took over the computer printer market. Anybody remember line-printers? I used to work at a computer center that had a bunch of those. That's less than 25 years ago, and current teenagers haven't even heard of them.

Edit:
Never underestimate the need for high quality output. Today, people accept to see video on the internet in a tiny, low quality frame. Competition will drive that quality all they way to full HD and beyond. As for corporate customers, the need is already there. It's just a question of awareness.

There will obviously be photographers in the future too who do only stills. The question is if they will be many enough to keep the high-end manufacturers like Hasselblad and Phamiya alive, particularly if longer production runs make convergent systems cheaper to manufacture.
 
Last edited:

georgl

New member
The focal lengthes of the HCD-lenses are real, so 28mm and 35-90mm. I've just calculated the theoretical angle of view of a 28mm-lens with a 36,8mmx49,1mm-sensor: it's 95°, just like they say.

The S-lenses are designed for the 30x45, even taking the cover-glass into account - that was told to me by their engineers. It's the "LeicaPro"-format, so any future camera in the S-system and it's lenses are designed for 30x45mm image area - not less or more. Kodak (Dalsa and Schneider/Rodenstock seem to agree) claims that the pixel-pitch of sensors can be further reduced to 5µm (~2002: 9µm, ~2004: 7,2/6,8µm: ~2008: 6µm) without any revolution in sensor design and compromising IQ, which basically means improving the fill-rate (the pixel-pitch becomes smaller, but not the light-sensitive area).
Delivering 100lp/mm (5µm) at high contrast over the whole image area (a large image area!) is really difficult and diffraction becomes a real issue (f8?)

So I hope we will see more cool features and lots of investment into the professional/demanding-market (not only press-cameras) but right now, Leica seems to be the only one with an entirely new system - hopefully Phase will change Mamiyas investment-strategy... (how long do we wait for their central shutter lenses?). But major improvement regarding practical IQ? I don't think so.

Lots of hopes seem to focus on RED. Their marketing is clever and powerful (the exact opposite of Leica?) but besides that, don't expect any wonders. They don't like to share any fundamental technical information like other professional companies do. We are thrilled by a modular camera-system with a 645-617-CMOS-sensor but when you talk to someone who actually used and compared their current offering (RED ONE) with other cameras you will see that their technology is as limited as others.
It's CMOS-sensor delivers the usual performance you would expect from such a design with the usual problems (dynamic range, noise) and has very little to do with the quality MF-users are used to. The RED uses heavy compression algorithms (>>1:10!!!) so a higher-quality should be possible if they allow uncompressed photography with the promised cameras but just take a look at the so-called 4k-images, it's a video-camera, not a stil-photo-system:
http://www.macvilleproductions.com/redfootage/A016_C036_080518_00115.jpg

Everybody seems to complain about DALSA/Kodak-sensors, they want smooth 1600ASA, 100fps, live-view... But regarding IQ, I don't think there's a viable option right now. At least DALSA (I have no idea what crazy cost-cutting-ideas will come into the minds of Kodak-mamagers and how it effects their future sensor-business) will improve their sensors, they have the technology and experience. And I'm sure when fast CMOS-sensors are possible without any restricition regarding IQ, they will offer it and I hope companies with great bodies, electronics and lenses will use them.
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-known member
@ < 6microns and current areas - no manufacturer can make a lens able to make use of the resolving power of the chip - and that is assuming perfect workflow. It is already game over for the uber geek lens freak.

What I want is seriously larger chips with fatter pixel pitches > 9 microns so I can catch bucket loads of fat light on a technical camera with movements and can get back to serious control over the making of an image.

If photographers want to be something different to a still frame grab from a video camera - photographers need proper cameras - think 4x5 film and all the benefits of movements - and lenses that actually aren't out resolved by chips.

Of course this wont appeal to the SLR brigade who are getting exactly what they are asking for from MFD company marketers - more useless megapixels and less useability - because the SIZE of the chips are just too damn small to do anything with in terms of composiiton - thats why people are screaming for live video - some way to be able to actually frame /compose/focus using combinations of shift/tilt and swing..but the chip areas are just too small to work with easilly

What is needed is less minituarisation tech ..I am happy with 25 or 50 ISO a tripod / some fat light and an ability to use movement via fresnel. That workflow is what photographers used to be able to use with film - and that is why I have noted a resurgence amongst serious hobbyists with larger format film.

Sure your P65+ can match or exceed the resolution of large format film - what it can't do is allow for an easy picture making workflow incorprorating movements. no movements and all you end up with is same ol same ol perspectives and the usual photoshop workarounds - so boring to the eye so very very boring..
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Peter et all,
This is a very interesting discussion, along the lines of "In what directions is photography heading". A separate thread?
 

Mozbee

New member
@ < 6microns and current areas - no manufacturer can make a lens able to make use of the resolving power of the chip - and that is assuming perfect workflow. It is already game over for the uber geek lens freak
I don't think this is accurate! Zeiss already mentioned in 2002 that they were reaching over 250 lp/mm with the lenses Zeiss Distagon T* 3,5/60 and
Zeiss Superachromat 5,6/250. They also currently mention on their FAQ that they reached 280 lp/mm with the Superchromat 250. Based on a previous post on the page, if 5 microns = 100lp/mm, lenses are fine in terms of resolution. A fair conclusion may be that lenses are still outresolving sensor at this point and for at least a couple of years.

The issue in digital is not the resolving capacity of lenses, it is the collimation of light, or having the light hitting the sensor more perpendicular. The 4/3 world refer to telecentric, although I prefer the physics term collimation.

Now where's the issue? Is it the lens that doesn't collimate the light enough or is it the the sensor that doesn't tolerate enough a non perpendicular light? LOL! The problem definitely lies between the lens and/or the sensor and it depends which point of view one is taking.

No matter where is the problem, the issue is one of collimation, not of resolution.

Also that is purely a physics phenomenon, I don't think the workflow has anything to do with that as it is mentioned into the quoted text.

Please someone corrects me if I wrong, but my understanding leads me to that instead! And as a potential "uber geek lens freak" I think I will still survive! :ROTFL:
 

Mozbee

New member
I hope that Leica made the design of their S lenses to better collimate the light, That will ease the making of the sensor and avoiding to put offset microlenses as they have done on the M8 to rectify the insane incident angle of light rays found on rangefinder lenses.

If Leica lenses collimate the light well, I think it may helps them to reach a better quality (i.e. IQ) directly or indirectly by using a better lens design to start with. My guess is that they used their experience with the M8 and came up with something to avoid the encountered issues, unavoidable at that time!
 

Arjuna

Active member
With all due respect, I think that the resolution measurements for a couple of exotic, highly corrected, very expensive, telephoto lenses may not be completely representative of all the lenses that are in common use. In particular my understanding is that wider angle lenses present more optical challenges. Also, I think that collimation is not quite as big an issue in the medium format world, with its much longer flange to film/sensor distances, as it is in the Leica rangefinder / 4/3 format / 35 mm SLR heritage worlds.
 

Mozbee

New member
I agree that it might in fact be a mooter point for MF than what I could have initially thought! Good point!

The "exotic, highly corrected, very expensive, telephoto lens" would certainly be the 250mm, I don't think the 60mm is so exotic lens and it does reach at least 250 lp/mm. Not bad I think! I don't know if that lens is still expensive or not on the market.

Edit: After some searches, I found the lens to be well position price wise into the Hassy lens lineup according to its focal length.
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well just to add I do have a Phase P30+ back that does have micro-lenses and it's purpose is to gather light. Now i do have the only back rated at ISO 1600 as well . Full resolution i should add. Now i can't use my back on a tech camera though because i will get color shift. I think the M8 had a different purpose for the micro lenses and was designed more to bring light to the corners because of the sensor to lens closeness. This is not a issue with MF or DSLR's for that matter. I can't speak for the S2 which has micro lenses but I will assume that is for the same purpose as my back just to gather more light and not a corner issue like the M8. Now I would like to hear just for clarification from the Phase folks and the also Leica for the purpose of the S2 and micro lenses
 

Mozbee

New member
Guy,
Some more techies people can probably say more on the collimation and in regards to the format. From what I've read in the past, 35mm DSLR are also affected by collimation, just at a different degree compares to a rangefinder camera. I think the microlens is playing both roles of concentrator and collimator of light. The importance of one or the other will vary from body/lens combination to another. The idea is the same, you want the most number of photons to it the bottom of each sensor's cells.

My main point with this was just to bring more substance around the fact that lenses are having enough resolution, the perceived issue resides elsewhere!
 

carstenw

Active member
Guy,
Some more techies people can probably say more on the collimation and in regards to the format. From what I've read in the past, 35mm DSLR are also affected by collimation, just at a different degree compares to a rangefinder camera. I think the microlens is playing both roles of concentrator and collimator of light. The importance of one or the other will vary from body/lens combination to another. The idea is the same, you want the most number of photons to it the bottom of each sensor's cells.

My main point with this was just to bring more substance around the fact that lenses are having enough resolution, the perceived issue resides elsewhere!
I am not convinced that you are right. In fact, Olympus bet their boat on this strategy with the 4/3 system, thinking that perpendicularity of ray impingement (which as a term I prefer to collimation, which sound too much like sublimation to me) was a far bigger deal than it eventually turned out to be. The very large, for the sensor's size, distance from mount to sensor in the 4/3 system resulted in cameras which never reached the expected diminutive sizes envisioned early on, until very recently, much too late to conquer the market.

Clearly, the issue remains for the Leica M system, but most other systems have larger problems elsewhere.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
"We", meaning the current crop of grumpy, old men who are calling ourselves photographers, are totally uninterested in the convergent technology. On the other hand, the marketing, engineering and management staff who leave the universities now and in the future, and who will work for our clients in a year or five, and the photographers who studied at the same universities at the same time, will see the possibilities. Possibilities for better marketing, more efficient use of online media, cost saving etc.

Example:
I do a lot of industrial photography. Some of it is documentation of production processes for use in internal documentation, marketing and training of internal as well as customer staff. So far, I've had inquiries from two clients if I would be interested in doing videos in addition to photos of these processes. One of the clients is a Nikon user, and asked directly if I would be able to use a Nikon D300s for this.

For him there are cost savings having one person doing the whole process, and it simplifies his communication. For me, should I choose to accept the job, using an all Nikon system means large cost savings compared to buying a separate video camera. Yes, the software is a challenge, but those young, hungry photographers coming after us already know how to use that software. This is what they teach in universities these day. Luckily for me, I've already done some Flash animation, which makes it easier to adapt.

It's important to remember that, 15 years ago, almost all photographic work was published on some kind of printed media. Today, printed media are shrinking, while internet and other interactive media have opened up a huge, new potential for photography, video and animation. Since I'm a graphic designer as well as a photographer, I see the whole world changing under my feet.

Only four years ago, I was dragged into digital photography, kicking and screaming. Now, my attitude is that adapting is smarter than dying. It's great fun walking the streets of Hanoi with the Fuji and an 85mm, but I can't expect to make a living that way, not now and not in five years.

As for Hasselblad and Phamiya, they are solidly placed in the tiny, little market segment where bleeding edge technology may suddenly take over, simply because it makes sense from a conceptual as well as economical point of view. It may not happen overnight, but the change will come, just as laser and ink-jet printers took over the computer printer market. Anybody remember line-printers? I used to work at a computer center that had a bunch of those. That's less than 25 years ago, and current teenagers haven't even heard of them.

Edit:
Never underestimate the need for high quality output. Today, people accept to see video on the internet in a tiny, low quality frame. Competition will drive that quality all they way to full HD and beyond. As for corporate customers, the need is already there. It's just a question of awareness.

There will obviously be photographers in the future too who do only stills. The question is if they will be many enough to keep the high-end manufacturers like Hasselblad and Phamiya alive, particularly if longer production runs make convergent systems cheaper to manufacture.
I think you may be over-estimating the skill and talent of new people using video, and under-estimating the skill and talent needed to make motion pictures. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but by no means is it a common skill or talent ... in fact, it's quite uncommon.

BTW, my career was motion work. Planning, executing and post is an entirely different discipline. It's been the lead photographic form factor for decades. Nothing new there. Yet, I'm still alive as a still shooter. Yes, still photography is a shrinking business. But so is motion work.

IMO, our corporate industrial example is hardly typical and a Nikon D300s is hardly a RED outfit. Most people just do not grasp what's involved with shooting motion work of a high quality nature.

Some fine examples of videos have been shown from the 5D-MKII ... they were mostly shot by professional videographers that were already very good and quite talented. Lot's of people will be profoundly disappointed when they try to duplicate that experience. Just because their camera can do it, doesn't mean they can.

As far a quality is concerned, that's been dumbed down by the internet to the point that cell phone video has become acceptable ... even for TV programs.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I find the prospect of shooting video daunting. I will try, but I am full of trepidation.
-bob
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I think you may be over-estimating the skill and talent of new people using video, and under-estimating the skill and talent needed to make motion pictures. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but by no means is it a common skill or talent ... in fact, it's quite uncommon.

BTW, my career was motion work. Planning, executing and post is an entirely different discipline. It's been the lead photographic form factor for decades. Nothing new there. Yet, I'm still alive as a still shooter. Yes, still photography is a shrinking business. But so is motion work.

IMO, our corporate industrial example is hardly typical and a Nikon D300s is hardly a RED outfit. Most people just do not grasp what's involved with shooting motion work of a high quality nature.

Some fine examples of videos have been shown from the 5D-MKII ... they were mostly shot by professional videographers that were already very good and quite talented. Lot's of people will be profoundly disappointed when they try to duplicate that experience. Just because their camera can do it, doesn't mean they can.

As far a quality is concerned, that's been dumbed down by the internet to the point that cell phone video has become acceptable ... even for TV programs.
Your last sentence is unfortunately(?) the key to a big portion of the future market. I've been raised with the artistic and technical pride of real TV production (my father is a retired TV director), but that kind of quality thinking is getting increasingly difficult to find. Most of what is distributed today, even by large, commercial TV station, is of rather mediocre quality.

I mention the D300s example, not because I think it's "the same as" RED, but because it shows that clients are often aware of the technical development, and want to take advantage of it for their own applications. I do think however, that Nikon, as well as all other manufacturers of photo equipment, will have gear for professional productions available within a time frame of five years, and the 5DII as well as the GH1 have shown that in skilled hands, even these early generation cameras can be used to produce outstanding results. Unfortunately, they will mostly be used to produce mediocrity and garbage, also for the "professional" market, but that is no different from what's being made with other photographic equipment. It's simply the nature of the digital game.

I remember very well when PageMaker was launched, with the notion that "Now, everybody can be a graphic designer". They can, and it shows.

I do also believe that photographers with a certain kind of clients will either have to learn videography or hire someone who does it (as is frequently the case today), unless the photographer in question has so outstanding skills that he will survive on those alone, within his own exclusive, little niche. Video and photography are different art forms, but they are not like brain surgery and carpentry. They are rather closely related.

When you can pull a full resolution photographic frame from a video sequence recorded on a RED, that is obviously an options that will appeal to many clients, and although the quality and composition will not be the same as if it was captured by a dedicated still photographer, the savings by having one, two or three people less to pay, is tempting to any bean counter, and as has been shown many times, bean counters and marketing gurus rule the corporate world. Unfortunately, many of them do so with a rather distorted view upon reality.

The conclusion for me is that, even if the learning curve will be steep, and even if those who know the trade (video) will often achieve better results than a "converted stills photographer", the market decides what the market will buy. And the trend, at least among some of my clients, is that the market will buy more video. Not necessarily advanced stuff, and absolutely not high quality movies, but good enough to convey a simple message in an understandable way to a new generation of customers that has been raised in front of a TV with non-stop MTV and little else.

Will the quality suffer? Yes, often, but by focusing on learning the skills properly and combining the technologies in the best possible way, I also believe that it's achievable to get results that are well above the future average. While most of us, at least those that we meet on this forum, would prefer to make great art, only a small part of the market is willing to pay for that. With internet as the most important communication channel, the trend is frequent updates, but lower quality. "Good enough" really is good enough most of the time. It is also important to remember that this convergence of technologies that more or less come from the same offspring, does give us some new creative possibilities. I would prefer to explore those possibilities rather than argue about the limitations.

10 years ago, few photographers had much knowledge about digital processing of photos. That has changed. Other sides of this trade will change too. And although high-end photography may be affected later than the big masses, the changes will come, particularly on the equipment side. Cheap gear can be used for things today that you needed investments the size of a house to achieve just a few years ago. There's a reason why there are only three MF cameras left in the market. If those three manufacturers don't continue to innovate, they are history pretty soon as well.

And to keep this slightly on topic; this is where I think Leica has done something right. Instead of making a traditional MF body, they have installed what we must assume is good MF quality into a form factor that is preferred by most photographers. Time will show if that's enough for Leica to succeed.

Sorry for the long posts, but I do believe that there are changes ahead that are at least as big as the transition from film to digital, probably even more so. Believing that the transition from film to digital photography was it, simply doesn't hold enough water.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
I find the prospect of shooting video daunting. I will try, but I am full of trepidation.
-bob
It's fun at first ... then it gets boring. It requires a lot of time and dedication to follow through to the final product. Some people have the patience and appitude for it, and some don't.

What's interesting about using the FF DSLRs is the use of lenses that deliver the full DOF experience compared to the smaller chip video cams. It's more like the big 35mm cine cameras.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Good points on the difference between making motion and making stills - different world's and I have no interest in making crappy home videos - dont own a video camera think that they are silly toys..

Re Line Pairs - I dont give a rats tail about Zeiss claimed nonsence - neither of these quoted lenses is going to give me movements my friend - which was the point of my post - intenet chatter gets very tiring when people pervert a discussion by focusing on a phrase and missing the woods for a a tree as they say.

You get to a certain age (some of sooner some of us later) and you just dont want any more - you start wanting less...quality becomes more important and gimmicks become tiresome bumps in the road.

I am pretty close to ditching all my MFD gear except for one back to use on an Alpa and an arTec - hand held MF is not for me.
 

woodyspedden

New member
I find the prospect of shooting video daunting. I will try, but I am full of trepidation.
-bob
and you are a scientist Bob, as am I. I too am filled with trepidation about getting good at video.

If you look at what is being produced with these video cameras by more normal people than professional videographers such as Uwe Steinmuller who is a pretty fair stills photographer you will see what I mean. He is getting pretty good at the basics but mastering the software like Final Cut Pro is a different b all of wax. Photoshop pales by comparison. And finally you have to rewire your brain to think like a videographer.

Man I have enough issues with still photography

Woody
 

John Black

Active member
10 minutes on YouTube makes me wonder if we need anymore video devices. I'd rather see the R&D dSLR budgets spent on better sensors capable of greater DR, full 16-bit files, etc. In that regard the S2 might be a good thing. But I don't have $30k laying about, and even if I did, I doubt I spend it on an S2.
 
Top