Given the praise the Leica S2 and 120/2.5 get, it seems the D800 should be able to match pretty much any 40MP MFD camera in terms of detail.
Given the praise the Leica S2 and 120/2.5 get, it seems the D800 should be able to match pretty much any 40MP MFD camera in terms of detail.
I don't know what field curvature that S lens has but there may be circumstances under which it would perform better...
So I expect actually the D800E be on par with S2 in almost all situations.
And then again if we start coming down to flexibility and price there is a clear winner IMHO!
Thank you for the most respectful comments regarding the s2 and d800.
The Leica S2 considering it's price has a bad reliability record.
I know 4 people that have these cameras and all 4 have had issues with it.
Nikon and Canon reliability in there pro models is stellar in comparison.
German engineering is way over rated.
My Mercedes is a piece of crap compared to my Honda minivan.
.... and my family is German ....
I believe to understand how good/or not so good a lens works one has to shoot it in various conditions with real world subjects.
I can honestly say the 120mm is a impressivly good lens for me, specially because it has sharpness and "pop" on one side, but still draws portraits and skin gentle and also with a nice bokeh.
and I am Austrian, not German.
I would say that German engineering is not bad, but how it is finally brought into products is the issue. And I do agree with Mercedes and BMW examples and BTW I am now driving a French car and finally the first car I have NO issues!
Coming back to cameras and Leica: their design is superb, their QC is sucking. I had several lens issues with my R system and also with my M system, especially when I converted to M8 (all lenses (some 15 or so) had to go back to Solms to be adjusted for the M8 - they called it fine tuned - but this is actually a big nightmare considering the price levels.
And I also know personally of S2 owners who suddenly woke up with broken cameras and/or lenses due to several reason - QC being the main issue!
We should never neglect that Leica is a small company and all their cameras M and S are handmade, as are the according lenses. What else would you expect? They do not have the need to adjust their manufacturing for thousands of copies, which C and N and others have to do. And having shot Canon, Pentax, Nikon and Olympus as well in the past I must say that closest to a perfect manufacturing and final product (mass product) is Nikon.
So back to square 1 - Nikon ALSO wins in this area.
1) I agree that the reliability of the S2 might not be on the same level as the Nikon pro bodies. However we should keep in mind that this is the first generation of the S-System. Leica could/(probably should) improve their quality control. I had several M-lenses I had to send to service for adjustment.
However so far they managed to fix every problem I ever had. I have never experienced a "lemon" lens form Leica. The 4 S-lenses I own are all spot on.
If I remember my experience with japanese cameras and lenses, I have made such frustrating experiences with Canon and Pentax that I got out of those systems (unconsistant AF, decentered lenses, some lenses only usable when stopped down).
With Nikon I have had the best experience regarding AF and reliability so far. Just one 24-70 which got stuck. No problems with lenses, other than I miss a 50mm lens which is nice wide open.
2) regarding german engineering...well - since I am one of them I have to say it: we dont do wonders, we also make faults, brands like Mercedes sometimes listen too much to the controllers (same controllers who will tell their PR-agencies that the D800 is 99% as good as a MF-camera and therefore they will only get half budget for new camera gear in the future)... but I still believe we build the best cars in the world...
The only alternative I see are italian cars which are nicer designed, with more heart and soul, but then they are not reliable. I would drive a Masserati anyways if I had the money.
If it must be a french car I would choose 2CV - coolest french car ever IMO.
I dont think it is very reliable though.
As much as I want to believe these two cameras are equal, I can tell you right now that I'd rather own the Leica. That massive viewfinder and the simple menu and ergonomics, plus the lovely prime lenses, true water proofing, money aside it would be perfect for me. In terms of detail, it's plausible the D800E is the S2's equal. But for someone like myself who doesn't need all the extra features of the Nikon body but values a different shooting experience and process – slower, more considered – the S2 would be awesome. The brief tests I did with the Nikon and my 24-70mm G lens suggest performance might be variable. As much as the new Zeiss lenses are great, I'd prefer not to have to use MF lenses to get the most from my kit.
Either way, I'll be buying the D800E as soon as possible... The Leica is just way out of my price league!
The 2CV - you could push it to your destination if needed. Still the coolest car, but I would upgrade the wood to teak or bubinga.
Passed one on a Texas Highway going 30 miles per hour below the speed limit...not a good idea. I would rather be on a bicycle in that situation. But the bike would not have the panache of the 2CV...not even the Gitane....
Certainly. Likewise, if one is shooting landscapes, outstanding corner-to-corner sharpness and minimal field-curvature are valuable things.I believe to understand how good/or not so good a lens works one has to shoot it in various conditions with real world subjects.
I can honestly say the 120mm is a impressivly good lens for me, specially because it has sharpness and "pop" on one side, but still draws portraits and skin gentle and also with a nice bokeh.
>If it must be a french car I would choose 2CV - coolest french car ever IMO.
Had one 40 years ago. Performed great but also rusted even faster.
Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
So reading this thread - a bunch of people think the D800 is a better value propostion than an S2 - well isnt that just fabulous!
Last edited by D&A; 11th April 2012 at 21:11.
No question about it. As much of a PITA it was I shot at least 5 sets with the 160 and D800 just so it varied somewhat . One shot wonder tests are not very telling.
On the DWF website, where a bunch of early adopter pro wedding photographers have already pressed both the Nikon D800 and Canon 5D-III into service ... there are reports of issues with both cameras.
The D800 has a number of users reporting total lock-ups while shooting requiring a battery removal re-boot, and back-focusing issues when used in conjunction with SB-700 and 900 series focus assist speed-lights (but not with SB600 or 800s) ... this issue is also reported on DPReview.
Canon has suspended shipments of the 5D-III until the newly discovered light leak issue can be dealt with (hopefully with some firmware patch). Evidently the LCD light is affecting exposure metering in low light, and in bright sunlight, it also happens.
Anyone like me who went through the mirror box debacle with the pro body Canon 1DMK-II and Canon's initial denial, would beg to differ with your absolute pronouncement of superiority.
My trials and tribulations with Nikon Pro bodies and a reoccurring issue with their 24-70/2.8 (two copies broke in half because of a cheap pig-metal interior framework connection that was anything other than Nikon tough like some older Nikon lenses). A Nikon Pro body once lit up like a possessed Christmas tree and wiped all my images ... never figured that one out.
I DID have an issue with my S2 (which I reported in detail here on Get Dpi), received a loaner the next morning and my S2 picked up at the same time. Rather than a denial, I received an apology from Leica for the inconvenience. Since then, the S2 has performed flawlessly for me and has become my number one go-to camera.
The only cameras I've had zero issues with have been my two Sony A900s ... but I've had to send 2 lenses back to get better copies.
These are complex tools, any new camera design rushed to market for marketing reasons is ripe for issues.
Last edited by fotografz; 14th April 2012 at 01:49.
2 Member(s) liked this post
I've been shooting with an H3D 22, H4D 31/40/50/60 and a D800 for the last week. I have to say the D800 is really impressive. My focus has been on the 22 and 40 shooting along side the D800. I still prefer my H3D 22 files and the color coming out of both the 22 and the 40 are at the moment more appealing to me then the D800. I'm also noticing the D800 will show EVERY flaw with one's technique. I've been using the 120 HC with the hassy and the 70-200 VRII with the Nikon. I'm averaging a lot less keepers with the D800 then with the H4D or my D3/D3S cameras.
We'll see how the next few days go =)
I do not own any of the two cameras, nor do I have worked with them. So I have no ego involved here.
But judging by what is only displayed on this site it is so absurd to conclude that the results are equal, that I asking myself what people are actually looking for, when they look at pictures.
Let me preface my remark by stating that I shoot "fine art" photography and not wedding, seniors, or street.
My "small" size print is 12x18 and I often print as large as 40x60 inches.
20x30 inches is my "typical" or usual size.
Obviously, it helps to have a higher resolution or higher pixel count
sensor in such situations.
BUT, resolution is not the major factor in creating the image. For me,
it is the character (some call it the "draw") of the lens as recorded by
I CAN tell the difference between lenses. Some call the appearance
"micro-contrast", some say that the lenses have a "three dimensional"
I can certainly distinguish between an image with the Nikon 14-24 or
24-70 or 70-200 and my Leica S2 lenses. The image simply does not
look the same.
In this regard, it sounds like Lloyd's test may be inadequate to really
"judge" cameras or state that one is better or equal to the other.
Simply put you can't test look but really only technical aspects of a lens. How a lens draws is subjective so impossible to test that end of it.
I agree any test out there even from what I do which is even more a work in progress kind of testing is only a piece of the puzzle a lot of the times. In lenses you really need to get them into what you do as a shooter to see if it fits your style. Honestly most test sites are about revenue also. Lets be honest banner ads , google ads and affiliate partnerships are revenue based. In a way we are no different but we are not a test site. Just a little forum looking to support all the maintenance that goes into this place. For many it is there main income.
When you do have a real difference, then it's often (not always, but often) possible to correlate it with some measureable quality.
Remember how when people first started talking about bokeh, it was regarded as some kind of mystical effect. Then we learned how closely it correlated with spherical aberration and astigmatism, and a couple of other things. Now lens designers design for it, and bench tests are often pretty good predictors of what will look one way or another.
I'm not saying anything that hasn't been expressed previously. Like most things, there is more than one side of a coin that needs to be looked at regarding lens testing. Resolution, sharpness across the frame (even into the corners) is an important barometer for both potential performance and use for specific applications. Likewise the way a lens "draws" and presents an image can also be equally important for certain types of output. Weight is often given to one over the other and rightfully so. Therefore which of these often discussed attributes of a given lens, may come down to a photographers intended expectations and uses for such a lens.
Apparently both objectivitiy and subjectivity are involved and how much weight is given to each differs from one individual to another. Lens testing can be both a science as well as a personal opinion and often a lens that tests with near perfection on a test bench may be a poor choice for portraits...just as that great atmospheric portrait lens may be a poor choice for a detailed landscape that needs all the resolving power one can extract from a lens.
Last edited by D&A; 26th April 2012 at 07:22.
The difficulty in most of the camera and lens tests comes from debating the conclusions . One is better than the other in what way ,for what application . Lloyd s tests are IMO pretty well done and often include findings that I might initially miss . I use them to see what he is finding ..like asking a fellow photographer ...How do you like the new 35? I want his conclusion and more so his rationale ..what bothers him may be less relevant to me . He supports his findings with a lot of examples and I can see for myself what he is seeing .
But because we differ in our chosen photographic interests does not mean that his testing and POV can t be relevant . He can t tell me if the D800 is better or close enough to the S2 for my usage ? But he can show me his tests which make it less time consuming to learn the new equipment and probably help me make fewer mistakes in my gear “investments”. Where the debate becomes endless is when we try to pick a winner verse just understanding his testing and rationale for his conclusions.
I've never found various comprehensive test to be of any more value than being "generally directional" as applied to practical real world usage. When Guy and Jack first tested the S2 here, it was a directional guide, and I later found Lloyd's report added little insight to it. What was far more important to me was a real world, hands on demo provided by Dale photographic. After that, I waited until the S2 offering matured more.
Of course a test can be an indicator of suitability IF it is conducted in a manner similar to one's own intended use ... which I rarely find to be the case. I do not think Lloyd's reports are the same as asking a fellow photographer their opinion. There is little to nothing that Lloyd shoots that is relevant to what and how I shoot. If I ask a fellow photographer, I don't ask one that shoots landscapes, because I don't shoot landscape photography. I ask a people shooter.
A related "speed bump" I always hit with these tests is that it seems the intent of the product positioning platform is often over-looked. Leica has been pretty clear in how they position this camera and its intended target audience. It was never positioned as "generalists" tool, but keeps on getting evaluated that way. There are better choices for the "generalist" photographer, and considerably less expensive ones.
The internet is filled with reams of tech info regarding research for a particular camera or similar. Some have good reputations based on the extent and knowledge of such research, and I find that Lloyd's site is generally unbiased. His "paid" site, is much more detailed with an emphasis on particular areas that suit individual photographers. I tend to think that subscription sites can be more objective in their findings, as they're not beholden to a specific brand, and thus ego's are kept in check. DXO's site also utilizes very technical criteria to measure the performance of new technology, and it's findings don't seem biased, but rather essential for accumulating data.
I disagree with the "generalist" label because Leica's website even touts the S2, as being much like a 35mm in size and handling-in my opinion that appeals specifically to the "generalist" photographer. As planned obsolescence seems to rule the digital marketing cycle, Nikon's D800 is the new player, and bodes well for many photographers in many areas, with results that are directly comparable to the more expensive MFD and ultra 35mm, like the S2. Never read a camera review, after the purchase
1 Member(s) liked this post
Those who pay to read such reviews always would defend them. Why discuss this in open fora. Wouldn't it be better to have a Diglloyd forum for the subscribers and hash things out there?
Leica has clearly positioned the S2 as a professional tool, and the skew had been, and continues to be, toward editorial people photography and specifically Fashion/Beauty. The S-magazine and S-League presentations are crammed with this type of photography and testimonials from highly respected photographers in those fields. 35mm like handling, and weather sealing are also of value for this type of work. Not that one can't use the S2 for other types of photography, but you can say that about most any camera system.
As Roger has pointed out, there are no long lenses for the generalist, nor are there any zooms yet (which indicates the priorities), and may never be any T/S optics. The 120 macro is only 1:2 and no Elpro 1:1 extension is planned ... so with its fast aperture, is more suited for head shots than table-top or shooting Butterfly close-ups in the backyard. For my applications, as I position the S2 in my toolbox, I do not need anything else other than what exists right now. Because of the type of work I skew toward, the S2 is now my main camera.
The S system has been repeatedly referenced as being short on "generalist" abilities, but it is not a generalist tool, it is a specialist camera, like their other main offering ... the M9. It will fit that bill even better when they finally get the CS lenses to market, because strobe work is part and parcel of editorial fashion and beauty ... and any extension of that concept.
No disagreement from me about the D800 being a new player for now, and many will flock to it. That is a personal subjective decision. Volume of sales is no indication of anything except "General Appeal". I cannot remember Leica making any main product that had a general appeal.
Besides being forced to use Nikon lenses for AF work, my issue is that it is slow for 35mm DSLR type work, takes more care in shooting intuitive work, pales in comparison to its Pro sibling for high ISO shooting and AF speed, and so on. To me, the "horse for the course" that a 35mm camera skews toward, the D800 is neither fish nor fowl, therefore fits the generalist criteria perfectly ... a jack of all trades and a master of none ... with watch words being, "almost" ... and "good enough".
Again, just my personal perspective.
It is not surprising that you find little of value in any test . You are so not like any of the S2 owners I know that it is you that is not relevant to this discussion. Your experience and skills are without a doubt as good as I have seen . Nobody would doubt that you are an excellent photographer and because of your experience and dedication capable of getting superb results from the very best equipment. The best analogy I can find is a bogey golfer asking for club advice from a PGA pro.
Your willingness to accept the perspective of others is lacking . Not everyone immediately sees the differences and though we aspire to higher levels of professionalism most of us aren t there . We aren t stupid and incapable of understanding ..but we sometimes need examples and insights .
Test results with examples are useful to me . Agree that Diglloyd s test examples maybe done more to preserve a repeatable process that to provide insights into the ascetic that is obvious (when you know what to look for). I read all the tests diglloyd,Sean Reid , Michael Reichman ,Guy and Jack and a lot more . I am just interested in what they look for ,what they consider important and how they test for it. I don t even think about whether I agree with their conclusions .
IMO you are stepping over the line into Bullying ....like Jeff Schewe over at LL . No one else has a clue or in Jeff s case even brain.
You can take the position that no one should even be looking at an S2 unless they truly “get it” ..what an elitist attitude . I know personally half the photographers that post about the S2 . We disagree a lot but its always done in good taste and I learn from them.
Sorry to all for my rank but enough is enough .
http://rogerdunham.com/2 Member(s) liked this post
This thread is really getting in a wrong direction IMHO.
Why can there not be a number of people who are just happy with what the D800 / D800E bring to the game? This camera is the most outstanding development in digital photography over the past 10 years - at least for me. End of the day it offers incredible IQ, high MP count, superb ISO performance and all of that in a small body, which comes to a FRACTION of the price of the S2 (or any other MFD 40MP solution). I simply could not care less about the subtile differences between D800 and MFD in the area of 40MP, if I just consider the price.
Sorry to say, but if as a pro I NEED to have cameras like an S2 today in order to get the business or to differentiate from my peers, then I am doing something really wrong. So it cannot be the need, but rather the will to own equipment like the S2. And this side is fully understood. But everybody, even every pro (or even more valid for a pro) has a price limit for certain things to achieve. And no one can tell me that an S2 is needed, but it is definitely nice to have and absolutely a superb type of camera and maybe in some years even a superb system.
Having said that, the issue with Leica is that they are not really known for timely follow ups in their high end camera families, so I fear this is also true for the S2. While they at least should have announced a follow on body with whatever better capabilities (more resolution, better high ISO performance, better AF, etc) they most probably will not show up with such a camera before many years. And this means that their wonderful S2 model for an even more wonderful price will get even more outdated if it comes to overall features and pricing and system.
IMHO the S2 project should have never happened and they should have stayed in the 35-DSLR arena and bring some real high end camera in that area 4 years ago. And now upgrade it to something which nicely tops the D800, simply because of superior R glass and also newly developed R-AF glass. But now, with the S2 they find themselves in a niche which is too expensive to be attractive to more than crazily rich people or some demanding niche type photographers and finally some amateurs who think they need this type of equipment to make better photos, but could have achieved the same thing with meanwhile a number of alternative systems.
Sorry, but no one could show me so far better results from the S2 than could have been achieved with say a H4D40 or Phase P40+ or IQ140 and meanwhile also the D800 and its sibling without AA filter.
Maybe I am blind to these differences, but if so I am very grateful that I am because that saves tons of money
Life is an ever changing journey
https://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_...tography/sets/1 Member(s) liked this post
Peter, yes I agree with you that the thread is going in the wrong direction.
That is imho because there is no tolerance of other people's views, that others might rightfully consider one camera system on par ( for their needs ) with another or even better for their needs.
I am sure many here can afford more than one, two or more S2 or IQ180 systems; but they might very well choose a Canon/Nikon/M/ whatever based on their needs. Any person who believes that a price/performance/value judgement is not applicable is one I would not even consider doing business with.
Optics. I have signed off on installations of Zeiss optics running into millions of US$. From molecular imaging systems to the state of the art medical imaging.
More than 35 years in banking..my clients and I knew that a price/expected value analysis would be their success or their failure.
The value of ones ' creativity ' is nothing more than what another party is willing to pay for it. However loud a ' creative ' person might shout about his/her creative worth.
So it is with equipment. Whether geophysical optics, cutting edge medical imaging optics or a S2 or D800/E. Good, good enough, or not upto par is a judgement call. Raising one's voice does not alter that. Never will.
Between Friends1 Member(s) liked this post
There most certainly wasn't any intent to "bully" anyone ... I guess I am at a loss as how to respond to these blanket superiority statements other than to speak my mind based on my experience and understanding of certain issues. You support your opinion about things like the Lloyd tests, I don't agree and say why. Evidently that perspective doesn't follow the party line and my presentation is coming off as elitists. As to tests and all that ... I am very suspicious of paid internet tests after being stuck with a flawed pair of M8s and a zillion wedding images with magenta Tuxedos.
However, I am quite willing to inspect how I'm responding because it's just photography and no need to offend anyone. I would also ask others to consider the same. I often feel a sense of injustice and am rankled by some blanket pronouncements by some here ... so it's not you specifically.
What does set me of at times is painting owners of another cameras the fool stuck with last year's what-ever, and assuming what a company should do based on what I see as a fairly narrow perspective. "There is now a D800, what should Leica do?" What seems unacceptable is an answer that asks why do anything?
The photographic world is greater than GetDpi or even the internet itself. You know half the S2 shooters that post. I don't. I know a hand-full that never post here or anywhere that I know of.
I also assure you, I don't think what I do with a camera is God's Gift to anyone. I have much to learn yet, and even more to try and accomplish. Lighting is my rekindled love, and I am way more into that than yet another camera or lens that may or may not bring anything to the party.
Again, thanks, I will make every attempt to step off the line ... but do not expect me to become passively silent when I don't agree
Last edited by fotografz; 27th April 2012 at 15:01.
Let's get back on topic please. I would rather not lock this , delete that or edit whatever. Everyone had there say. Fair enough
I find S2 files do have a richness and supple colors and nobody needs to tell me how great it is, because a pretty picture does not need explanations.
This is not an elitists attitude, but simply a different value.
So far so good.
I like to have choice and in my perfect world there would be 100 camera and lens makers who all offer a different set of qualities. To each nature their own.
These test do go into the wrong direction, because their judgement is too limited and uninspiring. By these test standards, would Zeiss still design a 110mm /f2?
I dont think so, because it is not designed to get high test results, thus it would be difficult to sell. But it takes great pictures and has great expressive qualities. This is what I do care for.
However, I don't think it is a fair assessment to say the S2 is for crazy rich people, etc. I may be crazy, but I'm not crazy rich . There are simply those who enjoy the qualities of the Leica optics ... and will pay a premium to get it ... like $12,000 for a 50mm f/0.95.
I shoot so damned much that at this stage, it is nice to bring a camera to hand that I personally enjoy having in hand, with lenses that deliver the look and feel I prefer. Nothing more to it than that (which in retrospect is all I should have ever said in the first place, and kept myself out of trouble : -)
Sorry if I am touchy today . No foul intended . I firmly believe its important to embrace debate as learning experience . I don t want to disregard any point of view ..but I try to consider the source and where they might be coming from .
Back to topic...
My humble opinion is that Leica went the right route designing a digital system from the ground up. I'm no optical engineer, but it seems to me that the Nikon system is limited by its lens mount, flange distance, mirror clearance specs and the physical size of the 35mm sensor: i.e it's legacy system. The S2 might be big money now – justified by the cost of the technology and Leica's investment in R&D – but that's not to say tomorrow's fabrication technology doesn't bring about a big reduction in sensor / component costs. I reckon for that reason they MIGHT have an upper hand in terms of long term vision for their respective (current) system formats. An S3 with specs as Roger describes would be pretty amazing and I'm sure a desirable niche product – just like an IQ180 et al – whatever they price it at. I have no problem with that, even though I can't imagine ever being able to afford one at current cost of entry! It'd be amazing if Leica could improve their autofocus system to include multiple cross type focus points over a broad area of the fram – not like the Pentax 645D, which is a bit pointless IMHO.
Having said all of this, I have an 800E on order. I'll give that a nudge first!
It may be more rudimentry than say what a modern day 35mm DSLR has having cross type sensors across much of their frame, but what is avaialble in the 645D finder, did exactly what it was intended to do. I was ever so thankful the 645D didn't just have a single center AF sensor whereby I would have had to quickly stop and recompose each shot...which in some cases I would have absolutely missed some of the key shots. Sure there are workarounds, but not always are they ideal and in my shooting situation this didn't relate to capturing images of landscapes....wlthough I could also see where having simple multiple Af points, would also help with certain types of scenes.
1 Member(s) liked this post
The "look" of glass has been mentioned a few times, and I feel compelled to comment: I used to test lenses all the time, lately I've shied away. Main reason is attempting to describe the character of a lens in words is like to trying to verbalize beauty -- a task few of the master classicists ever accomplished. Unlikely I'd do better. Bottom line is lenses DO have characteristics that grab our attentions, and just like beauty, we can each see it differently. So when somebody says, "I love the look of my 85/f2 Hayek" and another replies, "It's a fine lens but I prefer the look of my 80/f1.4 Cruz," there is nothing to argue about.
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."3 Member(s) liked this post
you are obviously an exception and also an exceptional photographer, which can value and appreciate the Leica quality. I think I understand this, as I am kind of similar, but as photography is not my main business - and sorry I am coming back to this again - the price tag of the S System is simply in a range I do not want to spend money. Sure in certain areas the S System delivers incomparable results, but how often do I shoot in this area and how often do I need just what Nikon offers me now with their D800E and top Nikon lenses.
I did shoot the R system, including DMR with some of the finest R glass, I still own a very complete M system including the 1.0 Nocti, which I love and BTW this is the system I never sold any lens or camera I owned except the M8 wanting to go for the M9 which actually never happened so waiting now for the M10 , because the M system is and will always be something special for me - kind of love, as you obviously feel and have for the S System.
But if we leave all these very personal considerations alone, and look at what Nikon achieved over the past years, especially in their "war" against Canon, then one has to admit that the latest Nikon offerings are nothing else than spectacular - D800/E, D4, D3200, to be expected D600 - and all their lens lineup, which sure is not Leica level, but how far from that is it in reality and every day usage? I real doubt that many of your clients would recon the difference between a shot taken with the S2 or the D800E and one of the Nikon top lenses.
What I am against is al the generalization, with the exception that one can generalize that newer sensors are usually much better (DR, high ISO, resolution etc) than older sensors. And in that regard the S2 is simply a 4 year old design, which you can say is enough for you, but you should not neglect that the digital world is moving with light speed and even if we claim we do not need all of the new things and revolutions, we cannot deny they are around and are changing - sometimes brutally - what we were used to in the past. Same feelings also from my side BTW.
End of the day Nikon came pretty close to 40MP MFD and in some areas meanwhile even exceeds. And finally coming back to price - 1/5th of the price for similar quality which many cannot even see the difference - is something very appealing, at least for me!
Still enjoy your S System and I know you do!!!
I am starting to think about the S2 and M9 as my "don't give a $hit" cameras, because now that I have them and have been using them, I no longer give a $hit about other digital cameras. They do exactly what I want and their images are fantastic.
The D800 is not even on my radar, but I hope that for all the people that are enchanted by it, it can be their "don't give a $hit" camera too. Isn't that what it's really about? Everyone has their own ruler by which they judge their equipment and what is important to them. It's one of the reasons I am posting less these days I guess. I realized that I am not really interested in any of the new cameras these days, and so many of the image threads are organized by what camera posted them...something which used to be really interesting to me, and now doesn't leave me particularly excited.
A perfect summation.
Absolutely nothing wrong with being completely happy with you equipment . After years of going back and forth between Leica ,Hasselblad and Nikon ..I settled on 2 M6 and 2 R4MOT . When new models came out I never even looked ..how could they be better. New lenses I was interested in but only a little . Everytime I was convinced to buy Nikon I did for a while ..finally became dissatisfied and went back to Leica. No post processing for me ..look at the kodachrome slides blown up to 5ft wide.
But Leica abandoned the R space and replaced it with the S2 . No doubt a wonderful system as you should expect from Leica . However its MF and with all its pluses ...its not as versatile as a DSLR . For some applications I wish I had my DMR . Maybe Leica will come through with a camera that uses R glass at Photokina .
For me its not at all about d800 verse S2 ..its about how good the D800 will turn out to be. I know how good the S2 is and where it fits in my shooting . I have spent a lot of time pounding a square peg (the wrong tool ) into a round hole .(using an M9 for tennis?). I know where the DSLR fits in my kit and how I would use it . (Leica is not up to my requirements in high ISO performance ,speed of operation or the ability to use long lenses) . Maybe I can craft a kit around the Nikon D800E and D4 that covers it .
The comparisons really provide a nice benchmark ..something to gauge absolute performance against . Ultimately we all do our own tests ..but I enjoy learning what others see and how they judge the equipment .
I wish I could get down to just two Leica systems . Two Domkes packed and ready to go. But I think it will be three systems and those darn pull bags .
I too would enjoy more posts on “best practices “ how photographers apply their tools to create photographs .
I'm down to two TT retro bags one for my Nikon the Retro 30 and one for my Tech cam a retro 10. I could not be happier supporting only 2 setups. But I'm really sick of gear to be honest and I've been eating , breathing and not sleeping it 24/7 365 for 36 years. Any piece of gear to inspire me during my burnout stages I'll take. In one as we speak.
But I will tell you this and I have downplayed this a great deal. The D800 is a lot better than what I have posted about.
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
www.guymancusophotography.com2 Member(s) liked this post
Don't get me wrong Roger, I still enjoy reading reviews, and I still like equipment. Equipment can inspire me and intrigue me at times, but for me at this point, I am kind of out of the game for digital. I really noticed this the other day when I went to my local photo supplier to pick up some printing supplies for a job -- he had just received an X Pro 1 and was showing it off to a very interested customer. He asked me what I thought and so on, and I realized I had no interest at all! This is not to disparage the X Pro 1...I am sure it is a great camera, but it does nothing for me. Make it full frame, give it a rangefinder and a Leica M mount (digital Hexar RF), and then maybe you will get me to stop and have a look, but not as it is. Same for the D800. If it mounted S or R lenses natively and had the design language of something like an R9 or Contax RTS III, that would be another story. I am not saying anyone else should feel this way, just that for me, the S2 and M9 have got me covered for digital, and if I want something different, there are tons of interesting and unique film cameras out there with brilliant designs that keep me happy.
And for versatility, for me at least, the S2 is a much more versatile system than the DMR and R9 were. (I could go into it, but it is boring...basically the S2 is better in almost every technically and ergonomically measurable way, from battery life, to weather sealing, to performance and image quality.) But in a way versatility is kind of overrated for me. I have three lenses, but that is all I need for the kind of work I do with the S2. I can see missing an extreme wide angle or super telephoto if that is what you do, but it's not me. Besides, I have the V adapter and can use 250 and 350 Hasselblad lenses if I need real length. I don't need a camera that can shoot ISO 12500, nor do I need a camera that has 50+ AF points and continuous AF that can focus on a tennis ball from 10 miles away. I don't photograph that stuff! If someone does, the S2 is not the camera for them to choose! From the sound of it, if you need extreme high ISO and speed, the D4 would be a way better camera for you. If you have a look at my website or blog, you could probably see pretty quickly that it is not a problem for mine! So we are back where we started, to each their own...