V
Vivek
Guest
I am hoping the Nokia pure view is at least a 10% Wow.
You seem to have come with a new scale here, Guy! I like it! :thumbs:
You seem to have come with a new scale here, Guy! I like it! :thumbs:
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!
Diglloyd d800 vs S2 shoot out
- Thread starter tashley
- Start date
KurtKamka
Subscriber Member
It's a new world that we live in. In the past, the masters of a craft would spend years working with equipment and technique to develop their own style and to get the best out of their tools. For some, it was an organic process and for others, it was something that they discovered along the way by using new vehicles for advancing their creative vision. The common thread was the artist spending time with his equipment to learn its nuances to push himself forward. But now in the age of the Internet, we're lucky as we can forget about all of that because we have 'experts' who have used the gear for all of ten minutes shooting walls, doing crazy lens and camera shoot-outs to tell us what's best for us. I get the excitement for new gear (and this isn't meant as a slam against those who love talking about gear as I'm greatful for the time they take to review what's interesting to them) but the more that I shoot, the more that I respect those that talk about what they don't know.
johnnygoesdigital
New member
I think it's important to note, that most here are not buying cameras to indulge. To me that seems to imply more of a hobby or passion; or those at a point in their careers that can justify the purchase and roll it into the cost of doing business. That's a position I hope to obtain...someday. The fact is, the D800 has completely changed the the options and thinking of many potential MFD customers. Subtle tone, and color saturation differences, are less important now, to the not so subtle price difference! That's what these comparisons have ultimately evolved to now when comparing these two models, and we haven't even reviewed the D800E yet.
robertwright
New member
Unfortunately the industry has taken a fair dose of lowest common denominator since the original 5D- at one time editors would not even look at 35mm no matter what the flavour, with the exception of news outlets and nat geo, 35 was not the go to assignment cam, medium format and larger was what was expected. I'm talking primarily about magazine work. Editors wouldn't even look at 35mm contacts even if you sent them enlarged contact, which I did on regular basis.
Since digital has come along most of that has been ameliorated since you are looking at a screen, the original capture format does not matter as much, and we have all down shifted to the toyota camry of cameras, the 5D and successors.
What has been lost is the look of larger formats, the drawing, the spatial rendering. In terms of the editorial photographers that I follow now, and specifically in the younger generation, under 30 or near that mark, the ones who came into the industry post-film, they are very very interested in differentiating themselves and have really gone in for medium and large format film capture. Even 35mm neg has come back very strong since it all gets scanned and edited on screen, so editors who themselves are of a new generation have none of that bias towards 35mm film and see it as expressive and fresh.
The 5Detc still is used for a very large majority of work, and no doubt the d800 will so as well, I just wanted to relate what I am seeing on the magazine side. We like to compare these things but formats still matter, and no, cropping your 35 to 4x5 or 6x7 in post is just not the same. It looks completely different. Not to mention the working methods of digital vs. film, the results are very different.
You could argue the logic some have argued about the hybrid or alt-powered car, as the car freed the horse from manual labour, the hybrid or gas-less car might save gasoline powered super cars, etc, so the digital camera might free the film based camera to do really expressive and creative work. I just hope kodak sticks around long enough....
Since digital has come along most of that has been ameliorated since you are looking at a screen, the original capture format does not matter as much, and we have all down shifted to the toyota camry of cameras, the 5D and successors.
What has been lost is the look of larger formats, the drawing, the spatial rendering. In terms of the editorial photographers that I follow now, and specifically in the younger generation, under 30 or near that mark, the ones who came into the industry post-film, they are very very interested in differentiating themselves and have really gone in for medium and large format film capture. Even 35mm neg has come back very strong since it all gets scanned and edited on screen, so editors who themselves are of a new generation have none of that bias towards 35mm film and see it as expressive and fresh.
The 5Detc still is used for a very large majority of work, and no doubt the d800 will so as well, I just wanted to relate what I am seeing on the magazine side. We like to compare these things but formats still matter, and no, cropping your 35 to 4x5 or 6x7 in post is just not the same. It looks completely different. Not to mention the working methods of digital vs. film, the results are very different.
You could argue the logic some have argued about the hybrid or alt-powered car, as the car freed the horse from manual labour, the hybrid or gas-less car might save gasoline powered super cars, etc, so the digital camera might free the film based camera to do really expressive and creative work. I just hope kodak sticks around long enough....
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Kurt-
I agree with that.
For some new photographers who find inspiration in a particular artist, might try to purchase the same gear and develop a technique that closely matches what inspired them, and ultimately find their own style along the way! That's not changed, but with technology being the ultimate marketing tool, as a direct link to becoming a professional photographer, many have become complacent in that way of thinking. After viewing FredBGG's images taken with an 11mp camera, I've decided to bring my old 10D out of mothballs and re-connect. I think the internet is an important tool to gauge the incredible amount of information that's available for camera technology, and am grateful for those that take the time to do it. This is not meant to offend S2 owners, but these comparisons are a result of the close relationship in MP's. The results of these two cameras is surprising, and honestly, the D800 has done more than anticipated.
I agree with that.
For some new photographers who find inspiration in a particular artist, might try to purchase the same gear and develop a technique that closely matches what inspired them, and ultimately find their own style along the way! That's not changed, but with technology being the ultimate marketing tool, as a direct link to becoming a professional photographer, many have become complacent in that way of thinking. After viewing FredBGG's images taken with an 11mp camera, I've decided to bring my old 10D out of mothballs and re-connect. I think the internet is an important tool to gauge the incredible amount of information that's available for camera technology, and am grateful for those that take the time to do it. This is not meant to offend S2 owners, but these comparisons are a result of the close relationship in MP's. The results of these two cameras is surprising, and honestly, the D800 has done more than anticipated.
johnnygoesdigital
New member
robertwright-
Perfectly stated.
Perfectly stated.
vieri
Well-known member
Just a side note on the MF thing when talking about the S2: IMHO, the S2 can hardly be considered MF, and would definitely not have been considered as such back in the day. Leica S2's sensor is 45 X 30 mm, while the D800's is 35.9 X 24 mm. We are talking of something not even close to twice the area of the other, when back in the day even 645 (which on the other hand is exactly twice the area of the S2's sensor) was considered "small" compared to 6x6, 6x7 or 6x9. It is only natural to see that with the development in technology the D800's slightly smaller sensor outperforms the S2's. On the glass side of the equation, while the latest Nikkors are doing very well by themselves I am not in the least surprised to see that using Zeiss glass the gap with the S2, as Lloyd showed, is tipped in favor of the D800.
This, of course, not even putting into the equation price, flexibility, number/range etc of lenses natively available (and not with a crippling adaptor), native flash system, AF, operating speed, performance, accessories, etc etc makes a no-brainer IMHO when having to choose between the D800 and the S2.
On an IQ-only base, and especially on certain subject matter/photographical applications, of course high-megapixel DMF still has (and will for some time have) the edge. Again, not considering price, flexibility, number/range etc of lenses natively available (and not with a crippling adaptor), native flash system, AF, operating speed, performance, accessories, etc etc...
This, of course, not even putting into the equation price, flexibility, number/range etc of lenses natively available (and not with a crippling adaptor), native flash system, AF, operating speed, performance, accessories, etc etc makes a no-brainer IMHO when having to choose between the D800 and the S2.
On an IQ-only base, and especially on certain subject matter/photographical applications, of course high-megapixel DMF still has (and will for some time have) the edge. Again, not considering price, flexibility, number/range etc of lenses natively available (and not with a crippling adaptor), native flash system, AF, operating speed, performance, accessories, etc etc...
ptomsu
Workshop Member
+1
And may I add - showing a large print - even A0 size - to a client, I really doubt any of them could tell the difference between a D800(E), S2, HB40, 50, 60 or IQ140, 160 or even 180!
Have seen prints form a D200 larger than A0 and I was just speechless of the IQ. So we are getting into areas where we compare not percents, but much smaller numbers ....
One thing which was mentioned I find still pretty accurate - how much one likes a certain camera in their hands. And here the S2 is anyway a clear winner. Anything else - just forget. Or simply try to ignore to justify already down investment.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Actually for me it was the thing that really bothered me on the S2 was the wide grip at the bottom. Just felt very uncomfortable.
Not sure what forum you're talking about ... but fact is most here DO induldge themselves to the degree they can. While some are professional photographers in fact, and some partially, most here don't make their living doing so.
Most here DO engage in photography as a passion or hobby (hate that word) ... are enthusiasts and get what they want. Besides, if someone wants to buy a $7,000. Olympic sports camera to shoot the grandkids running on the beach, who cares?
Not arguing the fact that some if not many potential MFD buyers will opt for the D800 ... if close enough is good enough then why not?
The price difference is relevant to some, probably many, but not all. Depends. Who cares about pixel count if you don't like the camera? I could easily afford a IQ180 and DF system at twice+ the pixels of the S2 for about the same $ ... I like the IQ back, don't like the camera. End of discussion.
I DO NOT like Nikon cameras or their lenses, and I'm sure not stepping back to MF Zeiss lenses either. I would NOT care if the D800 was 54 meg, and $2,000.
I prefer sticking with a camera I like for a while to learn about all I can do with it ... without making universal pronouncements in comparison after a few shoots ... especially shots of walls.
BTW, I also played with the Nikon RAWs, and the D800 ain't no S2 ... being the same sort of different spatial and rendering aesthetic relationship between smaller cameras and 35mm DSLRs ... as someone pointed out earlier, format still matters ... creatively.
-Marc
You need new clients ... and maybe glasses
Besides, since when do clients dictate (speaking of the lowest common denominator) ... they don't have any more say in my aesthetic expression, than an internet blogger that charges $76 for his opinion.
The "down investment" quip is endemic of photography today ... more suited to wall street or the banking industry. The "justification" chestnut is the usual charge levied against almost any Leica product, as if we are to quiver in our boots and be remorseful of our purchase. The only justification anyone has to worry about is to themselves ... are you creating with the tools you use, do they hamper or help? Not how much they cost and whether someone else thinks differently ... who cares what others think? ... that's a mental instincts of a Lemming, not someone creating something.
-Marc
OR ... a simple, intuitive camera that slides in-between 35mm and 645, that has a big bright viewfinder, is fast to operate (for those who've used it for more than a week) ... with just the right range of lenses for what they shoot, and doesn't care if it does twenty other things.
Like some others here, I don't buy your absolute pronouncement of superiority no matter how many times you repeat the mantra. I don't like the look, and I don't like the Manual ZF lenses. "Like" still has a LOT of leverage in any creative endeavor, and the absolutism of technological pronouncements can't change that and never should.
-Marc
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Unless of course, we're talking about the S3
tashley
Subscriber Member
I think it's just fine to discuss it back and forth: no-one is telling anyone else what to buy or what to keep and I think we pretty much all know that the wall shots in the Diglloyd test are revealing of only one particular relative aspect of the combinations of two particular cameras and lenses. It takes a lot more data points than that to build a subtle and complex picture of the relative strength and weaknesses of systems.
As far as I can see, most people here aren't thinking that the days of the MF system are over - whatever Diglloyd might claim. I know for a fact that I will get better pictures, assuming good technique, from my IQ180 than I will from my upcoming D800E but I also know that there are many occasions when I will likely choose the D800E because it'll give x% of the same quality for only y% of the effort. That's a reasonable calculation to be trying to make - it is the one that Guy has already made in fact.
And as for Marc, I think he is exactly right to shoot the system with which he feels most 'right' and not to chase rainbows. If I had yet found a system that felt that way for me, I wouldn't be chasing said rainbows myself! But as it is, I do take quite a lot of pictures, some of them successful I hope, with a range of cameras none of which is exactly what I imagine I really want but all of which are more capable than I am!
As far as I can see, most people here aren't thinking that the days of the MF system are over - whatever Diglloyd might claim. I know for a fact that I will get better pictures, assuming good technique, from my IQ180 than I will from my upcoming D800E but I also know that there are many occasions when I will likely choose the D800E because it'll give x% of the same quality for only y% of the effort. That's a reasonable calculation to be trying to make - it is the one that Guy has already made in fact.
And as for Marc, I think he is exactly right to shoot the system with which he feels most 'right' and not to chase rainbows. If I had yet found a system that felt that way for me, I wouldn't be chasing said rainbows myself! But as it is, I do take quite a lot of pictures, some of them successful I hope, with a range of cameras none of which is exactly what I imagine I really want but all of which are more capable than I am!
S3? Oh my aching pocketbook ... :ROTFL:Unless of course, we're talking about the S3
All I can say is that Leica best get the Leaf shutter lenses out before another body. The dual shutter was one key reason I bought into the system in the first place ... high sync speed is very important to me.
Then again, the S2 would make a great back-up ... one set of lenses and all that.
-Marc
I agree, and while I also use different cameras, the S2 has come closest to crossing barriers ... much of the handling, ease and speed of 35mm, and the look and feel of MFD ... if I had the S leaf-shutter lenses, it could do more of the MFD work than now. That is the only thing disappointing about the S2, the LS lenses are still not here :wtf:
I especially agree that most of what I currently use is more capable than I ... which is why sticking to something longer than a May fly's life span isn't a bad idea.
-Marc
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Ah yes it would indeed! An S2 with leaf shutter lenses, now that would make a great image for a poster on my wall...or in a magazine under my bed (between the mattress) sshh, don't tell my wife.:bugeyes:S3? Oh my aching pocketbook ... :ROTFL:
All I can say is that Leica best get the Leaf shutter lenses out before another body. The dual shutter was one key reason I bought into the system in the first place ... high sync speed is very important to me.
Then again, the S2 would make a great back-up ... one set of lenses and all that.
-Marc
vieri
Well-known member
Marc, you should re-read my message(s) and your abundant absolute pronouncements on the greatness of the S2. I understand your preference, and respect it; what I don't understand is why you feel so defensive when it comes to your precious S2, and why you don't respect neither actual truths (come to that) nor others' opinions, in this and other threads, when it comes to comparing the S2 to other cameras.
Let's see. Is the S2 less fast/has a lesser AF/etc etc than other cameras? It is and it has, whether you need or not the features that the S2 lacks. Does it have a very limited native lens array compared to other cameras, whether you need these lenses or not? It does. Is it way more expensive than any 35 mm camera? It is. Is it a MF camera, which by the way was the point of my reply? No, it isn't, it "slides in between 35 mm and 645" as you said. Does it have a lesser flash system than Nikon or Canon? It does, whether you need it or not. And so on.
That said, if what the S2 offers is good for you, wonderful, I am not and haven't ever been trying to convince you otherwise. Other than that, let other people think what they want without being accused of "repeating things like a mantra" and such, which is exactly the same thing you do, except for the small fact that what I am listing are features and actual facts/truths (again, whether you need these features and stuff or not is a completely different matter, completely personal and out of any discussion), while you talk about "like", which I never mentioned, discussed nor disparaged in any way and which, obviously, I respect completely; what I don't understand is why you think that what you "like" is equivalent to universal, factual truth.
So, you like the S2 over the D800. Wonderful. Does that make it the best camera for everyone? "like some (many, I suspect) others here" I don't think so, no matter how many times you will try to sell your personal preferences as universal truth.
That said, I am off these silly brand wars. Feel free to have the last word on this