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
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Each Phase back has several profiles for different lighting conditions and also has profiles for each Phase lens being used.
I was told the S2 will work with Aperture and LR and they are working with Adobe on there plugin for it.
For C1 just like any other profile outside the Phase backs it is like one generic profile. You could with profiling software create them for different lighting.
But here is a issue I am just not sure about is C1 actually seeing the S2 for one and than if it does than you would have to select your built profile do a select all and apply it or make a preset. But the just seeing it part is my real question.
The one big issue I see for the S2 is noise and high ISO . LR is not known to be a good high ISO raw processor at least every camera i have tried C1 had much better noise
woodyspedden
New member
Peter
If I understand it correctly, Adobe has done the lion's share of the work for raw conversion for the S2. Not just unwrapping the DNG shell but true optimization. If this is indeed true both ACR (CS4) and Lightroom will have the lead for this camera.
As to C1 Pro, given the falling out between Phase and Leica it is doubtful that Phase will spend a nanosecond supporting the S2. I understand that the newest versions of C1 and C1 Pro have dropped some features for the M8 and C1 was originally shipped with the M8 as the standard raw conversion software. Given that Leica and Phase are now serious competitors in the MF end of things Leica will have to have a partner like Adobe to be able to do optimized Raw conversions.
Woody
Not. C1 supports only some specific sub-types of DNG. Whether the S2's DNG's are one of those - we'll just have to wait and see.
Sandy
We will have to wait to see. However, Phase One is not just a camera/back company, but a serious software company too. While they may not be able or interested in supporting every single RAW format for the various cameras, it still seems to be in their better (maybe not best) interest to make efforts to support the top end stuff if they can. If there are very proprietary formats or profiles that just take too much effort to work with, they may be less enthusiastic or up to date in their efforts. That is just my opinion. I would expect that they will support the S2, at least in some generic way at minimum. Maybe not the finest tuned profiles and stuff, but I just do not see them walking away from what could still be an important part of their customer base. If folks have Canons, Nikons, Sonys and maybe Leaf and Phase backs, in addition to a brand new S2, Phase One would want to keep those customers, rather than lose them to Adobe or Aperture or whatever as folks prefer to streamline their workflow with one really good app. LR may not be the best, but if it could handle everything one shoots with, it may be a preferred choice. So why would Phase One want to risk losing those customers just because they may also shoot an S2? I think in the end, Phase will support the S2, maybe generically, but with a DNG format, it is going to be hard for Phase to completely ignore the S2 and anything else from Leica, despite they're not working together anymore. Just my thoughts.
LJ
LJ
carstenw
Active member
LJ, I specifically don't think that Phase One sees it as being in their interest to support the high-end stuff. D3x and 1Ds3 will probably be as high as they go, for non-Phase products. There may be some rudimentary S2 support, but not what S2 owners will want, which is to get the same or better results compared to Phase backs.
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
4.8.2 has been extremely stable for nearly all of our customers (assuming they are using a supported computer and have used our instructions to ensure a clean installation). If you're experience does not line up with this I'd encourage you to PM or call me and maybe we can get you fixed up.
Capture One 4 Pro has been out for only about 11 months now and has made incredible progress during that time. To say they are "unwilling" to fix certain bugs strikes me as unfair. They have eliminated very nearly all of the general bugs and have added countless little tweaks (both visible and behind the scenes). If this is how far they've come in 11 months I can't wait to see the software in another 6 months. That said: I do sympathize; specific bugs that affect your particular workflow can be very frustrating. But there is every reason to think they will be fixed.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Last edited:
Carsten,
I understand that sentiment. It just seems like Phase would be moving itself to become that "closed" system that they have sort of railed against in the past if they do not work their very popular app to support the gear that many photographers use. I would bet there may be more Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Leica users that work on Phase One C1 than Phase back owners. Why would they want to lose all those folks, just to dedicate their efforts only to their backs and to not support other systems as they have been trying to do for some time. If they pride themselves in having a really good app with great algorithms and hopefully more speed to convert files shot by a variety of folks, why abandon that business and revenue stream? If Phase One stopped supporting the next generation of Nikon and Canon and Sony cameras, they will suddenly be strapped with an even more expensive app to sell to fewer customers. They took a lot of time to build it, build a following, and create a tool that many photogs like to use. If they shut the door on all those folks just because they see them as competitors to their own MF line-up, they are essentially closing themselves off. If that becomes the case, then Adobe, Aperture, RD and some others will become the preferred defacto raw developers. I have DPP for my Canons for example, and it does a very nice job, but I do not use it hardly ever, since it does not handle my M8 files or stuff others send me to look at and maybe tweak. Phase One C1 does a very nice job on files from many cameras, giving up that base group would probably diminish interest in them, just as Phocus is pretty much a Hassy only app. It may do a great job with those files, just as DPP does with Canon files, but it is not robust enough to become something one goes to for all their work, which is what Phase had been claiming it was aiming to do.
Let's wait to see just how good or not the S2 files are straight out of the camera and with simple, but good raw conversion. LR is not my choice as a converter, though I do use ACR (same engine and stuff) for a lot of utility work that usually get post process tweaking in PS anyway. I think LR is mediocre, but because it covers a very broad range of cameras files, and it has DAM, folks like to use it. If they will be driven to use it more because Phase stops supporting the cameras they shoot, that is not good for Phase....unless they really want to become more closed.
LJ
P.S. Further, what will happen to the techs and folks that support photogs at the pro level? Most of those guys become C1 gurus and magicians of sorts. Will busy pros have to start looking for camera file specific techs that use only the software that supports those files? That will create a bigger nightmare in an already tough environment.
I understand that sentiment. It just seems like Phase would be moving itself to become that "closed" system that they have sort of railed against in the past if they do not work their very popular app to support the gear that many photographers use. I would bet there may be more Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Leica users that work on Phase One C1 than Phase back owners. Why would they want to lose all those folks, just to dedicate their efforts only to their backs and to not support other systems as they have been trying to do for some time. If they pride themselves in having a really good app with great algorithms and hopefully more speed to convert files shot by a variety of folks, why abandon that business and revenue stream? If Phase One stopped supporting the next generation of Nikon and Canon and Sony cameras, they will suddenly be strapped with an even more expensive app to sell to fewer customers. They took a lot of time to build it, build a following, and create a tool that many photogs like to use. If they shut the door on all those folks just because they see them as competitors to their own MF line-up, they are essentially closing themselves off. If that becomes the case, then Adobe, Aperture, RD and some others will become the preferred defacto raw developers. I have DPP for my Canons for example, and it does a very nice job, but I do not use it hardly ever, since it does not handle my M8 files or stuff others send me to look at and maybe tweak. Phase One C1 does a very nice job on files from many cameras, giving up that base group would probably diminish interest in them, just as Phocus is pretty much a Hassy only app. It may do a great job with those files, just as DPP does with Canon files, but it is not robust enough to become something one goes to for all their work, which is what Phase had been claiming it was aiming to do.
Let's wait to see just how good or not the S2 files are straight out of the camera and with simple, but good raw conversion. LR is not my choice as a converter, though I do use ACR (same engine and stuff) for a lot of utility work that usually get post process tweaking in PS anyway. I think LR is mediocre, but because it covers a very broad range of cameras files, and it has DAM, folks like to use it. If they will be driven to use it more because Phase stops supporting the cameras they shoot, that is not good for Phase....unless they really want to become more closed.
LJ
P.S. Further, what will happen to the techs and folks that support photogs at the pro level? Most of those guys become C1 gurus and magicians of sorts. Will busy pros have to start looking for camera file specific techs that use only the software that supports those files? That will create a bigger nightmare in an already tough environment.
Last edited:
ptomsu
Workshop Member
LJ
this is unfortunately the issue! If you talk about MFDBs from whatever vendor (Hasselblad, Leaf, Sinar, etc) so far there was and is NO support in C1. Because in this area Phase obviously sees clear competition!
For the S2, as this is a clear competitor now, there will in my opinion be no native support in C1. Maybe one can generate their own profiles but this is not the way I like to go - so for me this is a clear exclusion.
It may be true that Leica working together with Adobe will bring great profiles and converters in the Adobe products (PS and LR) but this has to be seen. I already used LR and also Aperture for years but now I am back at C1 and I love C1. So hard for one like me to step "back" to LR or Aperture.
Stuart Richardson
Active member
Well, given how much attention Leica is giving the jpeg engine in their marketing, maybe they are confident that the files don't require as much tweaking as other medium format back makers? A lot of this is philosophy. From what I gather, Hasselblad and Phase emphasize getting very good out of the box images and the files as you open them in C1 and Phocus have already had a number of corrections applied. You might be able to turn most of those off, but they are applied as default. Sinar on the other hand, does almost nothing to their files out of the camera, and so while they are perhaps more raw than other raw files, they are like a blank canvas. This has an advantage in that you have complete control, but a disadvantage in that the files tend to look less than perfect out of the back.
If Leica is paying so much attention on jpeg, then they are clearly working on optimizing output directly in the camera. This would mean that they might need to rely on dedicated software less than some of the other MFDB players. This makes some sense too, as Leica has been burned in the past by third party partners. It makes sense they would do everything in their power to make the files come out of the camera as optimized as possible. Surely, the RAW files will allow you to turn off all the adjustments and noise reduction, curves etc, but it would make sense to me if the files right out of the S2 require very little RAW adjustment.
If Leica is paying so much attention on jpeg, then they are clearly working on optimizing output directly in the camera. This would mean that they might need to rely on dedicated software less than some of the other MFDB players. This makes some sense too, as Leica has been burned in the past by third party partners. It makes sense they would do everything in their power to make the files come out of the camera as optimized as possible. Surely, the RAW files will allow you to turn off all the adjustments and noise reduction, curves etc, but it would make sense to me if the files right out of the S2 require very little RAW adjustment.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I do agree to this, as long as the RAW files (and I am ONLY interested in RAWs) come out of the camera without the need for many tweaking
Albeit, I never ever saw and used any DSLR nor a MFDB irregardless of the manufacturer, where I did not need to apply a number of corrections before converting the RAWs into TIFFs for further development in PS.
Maybe my workflow is not the common one, but for Fine Art Landscape I think that there are no other options if you want to get highest quality for large fine art prints. I want the TIFFs which I import into PS be already optimized and this optimization I can do currently best in C1, just because of the clever combination and availability of the tools. If the same would be possible from LR or Aperture, I would not mind using these, but all my experiences I had over the past years tell me that this is not the case and C1 is clearly leading the secenery
So we need to wait and see what we really get from Leica .....
In the end each digital camera I have owned before offered a software solution to convert its images. Some more compfortable, some less, but after geting used to it one could work. C1 is nice, but IMO its not the only usable software in the world.
So I dont think we have to be afraid of getting a usable software for the S2 as well.
So I dont think we have to be afraid of getting a usable software for the S2 as well.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Your view, ok!
But I have a different view on that. You know, I am getting so tired of always getting comfortable with a new SW and I have now a great workflow developed for me - and Leica always offered C1 to their products - and suddenly they start competition with Phase and all things get bad :thumbdown:
Some more info. I'll assume it's true;
14 bit
Moire correction in camera, yes - but for jpegs only, NOT DNG. Begs the question....
No binning
No AF microadjust by photog possible - calibrated in lens at factory
1/2 ISO steps
etc
Last post, this thread
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/803846/0#lastmessage
14 bit
Moire correction in camera, yes - but for jpegs only, NOT DNG. Begs the question....
No binning
No AF microadjust by photog possible - calibrated in lens at factory
1/2 ISO steps
etc
Last post, this thread
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/803846/0#lastmessage
14bit ADCs are the standard and have little to do with the 16bit internal image processing that is written in the technical specs (DMR/M8/S2/Phase/Hassi).
There are 16bit ADCs for the linear CCDs used scanners, because they have a higher DR which can actually use 16bits. You can sample as many bits as you want, you need data to fill them...
http://www.analog.com/en/audiovideo-products/cameracamcorder-analog-front-ends/products/index.html
I have no idea what they want with the internal JPG-processing, maybe it's a technology important for "dentists" or some M9-amateurs (which will use S2-technology) but it's simply not a professional solution for demanding work.
But moire has to be removed by the user, because selective (and therefore not affecting the other parts of the image) recognition is easier for the human brain than for any software, no surprise here - just like in all other pro-systems.
"AF-microadjust" is a "feature" to compensate for higher production tolerances and less testing - let the customer do the work and we have an additional feature for marketing...
There are 16bit ADCs for the linear CCDs used scanners, because they have a higher DR which can actually use 16bits. You can sample as many bits as you want, you need data to fill them...
http://www.analog.com/en/audiovideo-products/cameracamcorder-analog-front-ends/products/index.html
I have no idea what they want with the internal JPG-processing, maybe it's a technology important for "dentists" or some M9-amateurs (which will use S2-technology) but it's simply not a professional solution for demanding work.
But moire has to be removed by the user, because selective (and therefore not affecting the other parts of the image) recognition is easier for the human brain than for any software, no surprise here - just like in all other pro-systems.
"AF-microadjust" is a "feature" to compensate for higher production tolerances and less testing - let the customer do the work and we have an additional feature for marketing...
I do agree on AF MA - if factory QC is tight enough and lens's can stay in calibration over time.
Jpegs - agree. Maybe quickly sorting images - or accommodating the "carry-it-as-status-symbol" vs true photo enthusiast market. The M8.2 does have an S mode after all.
Agree moire removal needs to under photog's direct control in PP.
That said, am curious as how folks will approach it lacking dedicated PP SW a la C1 and Phocus. Never had to try and use LR etc for moire removal, though I do understand there are some 3rd party plug-ins around and various painting/masking techniques one can try in PS, etc.
Jpegs - agree. Maybe quickly sorting images - or accommodating the "carry-it-as-status-symbol" vs true photo enthusiast market. The M8.2 does have an S mode after all.
Agree moire removal needs to under photog's direct control in PP.
That said, am curious as how folks will approach it lacking dedicated PP SW a la C1 and Phocus. Never had to try and use LR etc for moire removal, though I do understand there are some 3rd party plug-ins around and various painting/masking techniques one can try in PS, etc.
Last edited:
... for fast and good balanced preview in the studio to show to the art director...
basically true. But in reality the moire tool in C1 sucks... it's actually completely useless. I remove moire all the time selectively on layers in Photoshop...