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!

S Is For Show Us Your S2 Shots

D&A

Well-known member
Just some brief comments...

CEH, lovely shot of mountain and impending storm. Had something similar here recently where I live. I love "brooding" type of images and the tonality of the image adds greatly to its impact.

Mark, one of the reasons the S2 has me interested, is using it in ways that DMF usually isn't associated with. For myself, thats the whole point of my considering it, and I too view it sort of like Nikon/Canon on steriods. Many of the artists I shoot are constantly moving during performance and its a question as to whether the S2 can keep up...especially with AF tracking. I realize some things have to be sacrificed relative to those Nikon/Canon bodies (D3S and sometimes D3x), while other things are to be gained with the S2. It's a question of whether if I could live with the tradeoffs.

Marc, having seen many of your other posted shots (with other systems), I truly am looking forward to your images (and feedback) with your S2.
Wide DR is something I had hoped for in the S2, as much of what I shoot requires it, especially major stage productions where high contrasty lighting is often the order of the day. That image of the woman in the water, looks like she's was startled by seeing your camera and appeared to be exclaiming "OMG look, its an S2!" :)

Kurt, its just my impression but it appears you're trying to achieve a look of very shallow and rapid falloff of depth of field in many of your S2 test images....where the subject (object) in focus is highlighted by well defined sharpness. My impression (without really knowing), is you're trying (in some images) to emulate the look of your 0.95 Noct as when you used it on your M9. This of course is a good thing and certainly resulted in many impressive images (and not only due to shallow depth of field).

Looking forward to watching this thread closely. Thanks everyone.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Arif

Member
Just some brief comments...

Mark, one of the reasons the S2 has me interested, is using it in ways that DMF usually isn't associated with. For myself, thats the whole point of my considering it, and I too view it sort of like Nikon/Canon on steriods. Many of the artists I shoot are constantly moving during performance and its a question as to whether the S2 can keep up...especially with AF tracking. I realize some things have to be sacrificed relative to those Nikon/Canon bodies (D3S and sometimes D3x), while other things are to be gained with the S2. It's a question of whether if I could live with the tradeoffs.
Hi Dave,
I tried some tennis with the S2 for the AF test so here are some shots for your consideration.

Arif
 

D&A

Well-known member
Hi Dave,
I tried some tennis with the S2 for the AF test so here are some shots for your consideration.

Arif
Arif, Thank you for posting those two shots. It appears you (the S2) "nailed" focus perfectly. Lighting seemed adaquate on the courts so I'm curious how the S2 AF tracks under very low light conditions where AF is still a big plus for certain shooting situations; Although shots like these may be primarily the domain of the usual Nikon/Canon cameras, its one of a number of performance traits I'm looking at carefully in the S2. Although its capabilty certainly relies heavily in the hands of the photographer, I sort of get the feeling (as others have noted), that what makes this camera attactive for some is its versitility...sort of like a "bridge" type camera that fills a nitch between the usual 24x36mm full frame higher resolution DSLR bodies (such as the Nikon D3x and Canon equivelents) and the traditional moderate resolution (relatively speaking for DMF) MF cameras. I'm of course oversimplifying some of these comparisons. Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Thanks Lloyd and Mark.

Dave, you are right. One of my goals with the S2 was to try to shoe-horn it into a variety of applications where in the past I might have used either a DSLR or a rangefinder. It's not a perfect substitution. I'm certain most people would like to have a variety of tools to shoot in a variety of situations. I'm more comfortable, however, using a single tool as I enjoy the creativity of trying to adapt it to those various situations.

I'm excited about how I can utilize the S2 with the 110/2 to create images (like those with the M9 and Noct ASPH) that include layers of sharp elements contrasted with others that are much softer. It's a look that I really like. On the other hand, though, I can simply put an S lens on the camera for a different look that is incredibly precise and detailed with the narrower depth of field a larger medium format sensor provides.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Kurt, much like you I think I too am trying to shoe-horn (as you say) the S2 into a wide variety of applications, ultimately substituting the S2 for both the rangefiner as well as the 24x36mm full frame DSLR system. Already I've often bounced back and forth between the fast/high ISO performing D3s and slow/low ISO but higher resolution D3x, with little practical overlap between the two. I've tried to extend the range of use of the D3x into some of the D3s territory by a variety of techniques, in order to achieve the increase in resolution needed, but it was only met with limited success, as others have found by trying to do the same. By changing my shooting approach and employing other changes both during shooting and post processing, whenever possible, has helped to a degree and as a consequence certain benefits were derived from the D3x over the D3s. I would have to push that even further to some extent with the S2, but the payback I believe would be greatly extended over the D3x for a wide variety of reasons (many obvious) and worth it if successful.

The ulitmate answer to this kind of substitution is probably only answered by my putting the S2 through its paces and shooting with it specifically under my particular "shooting enviorment". In the meantime the information I'm beginning to gather in this thread is extremely valuable and I expect that to only grow exponetionally in time.

As for emulating and substituting (to a degree) the rangefinder and its use, that's a simpler question for me to answer personally, having used the bigger 24x36 full frame DSLR's in such capacity and already know it's drawbacks (aside from the differences in glass). As you say, with careful selection of lenses, like the 110/2, image wise, emulating certain characteristics you were fond of with the M9, is certainly doable, and may in fact lead to extending your creative vision in other ways. The increased capacity of the system of course is an added bonus. Again thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 

David K

Workshop Member
Arif, you really nailed that first tennis shot... nice work.

Mark, nice panning job on the race car. I think I can see you in the reflection off the young lady's sunglasses :)

Marc, where in the world did you find swimming pool weather ?

Anybody shooting with the S2 figure out a right angle finder workaround ?
 

jonoslack

Active member
As for emulating and substituting (to a degree) the rangefinder and its use, that's a simpler question for me to answer personally, having used the bigger 24x36 full frame DSLR's in such capacity and already know it's drawbacks (aside from the differences in glass). As you say, with careful selection of lenses, like the 110/2, image wise, emulating certain characteristics you were fond of with the M9, is certainly doable, and may in fact lead to extending your creative vision in other ways. The increased capacity of the system of course is an added bonus. Again thanks!

Dave (D&A)
Hi Dave
I'm rolling all these things around in my brain as well. However, what I have realised is that I'm not going to replace the rangefinder - not so much on the basis of image quality, but there are two things:

1 Pointing an S2 into someone's face from 3 ft is not the same as an M9
2 the ability to see around the picture in the M9 is just different.


. . . . which leads me to another problem, which is that realistically speaking I ought to trade in at least most of my M kit to be able to afford an S2 with three lenses :cry:

and then . . .

Wondering how I'd feel if Leica brought out a 30mp M9 with live view and excellent high ISO?
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Hi Dave
I'm rolling all these things around in my brain as well. However, what I have realised is that I'm not going to replace the rangefinder - not so much on the basis of image quality, but there are two things:

1 Pointing an S2 into someone's face from 3 ft is not the same as an M9
2 the ability to see around the picture in the M9 is just different.


. . . . which leads me to another problem, which is that realistically speaking I ought to trade in at least most of my M kit to be able to afford an S2 with three lenses :cry:

and then . . .

Wondering how I'd feel if Leica brought out a 30mp M9 with live view and excellent high ISO?
I had seriously considered to buy into the S system 2 months ago and was willing to sell my H3D39 with lenses for this (or at least to start with the S system) but I could not get a reasonable price for it - so I wonder how much M gear you need to sell in order to be able to pay for the S2 with 3 lenses :)

Having said that I fully agree that if there will be an M9 with 30MP and higher ISO (like the K5) IQ, I would definitely be going for it.

Or considering my FF Nikon (or your FF Alpha) I would expect the next generation of these cameras to have 30+ MPs. Would I then buy into the S System instead? I do not think so. The S2 is a wonderful camera for sure, but simply it will be pretty soon overrun by the next generation FF DSLR sensors appearing on the market.

Would I upgrade to a H4D60 instead from my current H3D39? Sure, especially with the current trade in prices this is very attractive and it will take a long time till we will see 60MP (or close) in normal FF DSLRs - if it will happen at all. So the H4D60 looks for me as a real upgrade in terms of IQ from current 40MP range of digital MF.

I know now comes the arguments of size etc. of the S2. Well, any Nikon or Sony (or Canon) FF body with 30+ MPs is still smaller or at least as small but much more flexible than the S2 - especially if you come down to the lens sortiment of the different systems.

So here we go, I think just waiting for the next step in FF sensor evolution is the way to go - at least the MUCH CHEAPER way ;)
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Hi Dave
I'm rolling all these things around in my brain as well. However, what I have realised is that I'm not going to replace the rangefinder - not so much on the basis of image quality, but there are two things:

1 Pointing an S2 into someone's face from 3 ft is not the same as an M9
2 the ability to see around the picture in the M9 is just different.


. . . . which leads me to another problem, which is that realistically speaking I ought to trade in at least most of my M kit to be able to afford an S2 with three lenses :cry:

and then . . .

Wondering how I'd feel if Leica brought out a 30mp M9 with live view and excellent high ISO?
Jono,

You bring up a couple of excellent points. Interestingly enough, I spent some time walking around a local public market with the S2 over the past several weeks. First with the 70 and then the 110/2. In both of those instances, I really didn't feel more conspicuous than I ever did with the M9 (but I always preferred bigger lenses on the M9 like the Noct and 75lux). Later, I walked around with the 180 and immediately felt like everyone paid attention to what I was shooting. I think that anytime I shoot with a lens that is a fair bit bigger in proportion to the camera I'm using I feel that I stick out more ... and the people around me seem to notice.

Second, the ability to compose quickly with extra room around the frame is something that I already miss. But, the upside is that I do like the large, bright viewfinder. I just have to retrain my brain after spending the last several years with the M9.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,

You bring up a couple of excellent points. Interestingly enough, I spent some time walking around a local public market with the S2 over the past several weeks. First with the 70 and then the 110/2. In both of those instances, I really didn't feel more conspicuous than I ever did with the M9 (but I always preferred bigger lenses on the M9 like the Noct and 75lux). Later, I walked around with the 180 and immediately felt like everyone paid attention to what I was shooting. I think that anytime I shoot with a lens that is a fair bit bigger in proportion to the camera I'm using I feel that I stick out more ... and the people around me seem to notice.

Second, the ability to compose quickly with extra room around the frame is something that I already miss. But, the upside is that I do like the large, bright viewfinder. I just have to retrain my brain after spending the last several years with the M9.
Hi Kurt
I've been really struggling with this . . . . I actually could just walk into the leica store and grab the camera (assuming it's in stock).

I'm in the position where I've cleared all the financial hurdles (even my wife smiles indulgently), so I just have to decide whether it's worth it to me . . . . . . . It's causing me serious mental anguish!
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Jono,

Will they allow you to test drive one for a day or week? It's probably a wise move for anyone considering any system this large and pricey. It made it so much easier for me to make such a decision. I used one for a week on two separate occasions and was able to test it in a variety of my normal shooting situations. After carrying it around with me everywhere, I became enamored with its form factor ... realizing that it wasn't nearly as big and awkward as the other medium format systems I'd used in the past.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Jono,

Will they allow you to test drive one for a day or week? It's probably a wise move for anyone considering any system this large and pricey. It made it so much easier for me to make such a decision. I used one for a week on two separate occasions and was able to test it in a variety of my normal shooting situations. After carrying it around with me everywhere, I became enamored with its form factor ... realizing that it wasn't nearly as big and awkward as the other medium format systems I'd used in the past.
Oh Oh Leica Drug Dealer. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Just kidding but I NO QUESTION agree go test drive any of these systems out FIRST. I did have a little issue with the grip as being wide at the bottom and my hands are not very big. But seriously when we are in this league of money with any of the MF system mistakes are extremely costly. This is not about Leica but ALL of them, you have to try them first.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,

Will they allow you to test drive one for a day or week? It's probably a wise move for anyone considering any system this large and pricey. It made it so much easier for me to make such a decision. I used one for a week on two separate occasions and was able to test it in a variety of my normal shooting situations. After carrying it around with me everywhere, I became enamored with its form factor ... realizing that it wasn't nearly as big and awkward as the other medium format systems I'd used in the past.
HI There Kurt
I've spent an afternoon with one - it might be possible to get one for longer than that. But it was long enough to know that I like the form factor and the results okay.

It fits the bill well enough . . . . it's just a case of whether the bill fits me :)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
More like platinum . LOL


Jono when you slide down the slope than we really have news. Marc, David, Kurt was of no surprise to me but You. We may have to make it a holiday. LOL

Myself I am waiting it all out to see what rains from the sky next year but enjoying you folks taking it for a ride.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Hi Dave
I'm rolling all these things around in my brain as well. However, what I have realised is that I'm not going to replace the rangefinder - not so much on the basis of image quality, but there are two things:

1 Pointing an S2 into someone's face from 3 ft is not the same as an M9
2 the ability to see around the picture in the M9 is just different.


. . . . which leads me to another problem, which is that realistically speaking I ought to trade in at least most of my M kit to be able to afford an S2 with three lenses :cry:

and then . . .

Wondering how I'd feel if Leica brought out a 30mp M9 with live view and excellent high ISO?
Jono, you and others brought up similar points (and some different ones too). My perspective may be slightly different.

Since I split my time between the rangefinder and full frame Nikon bodies, I'm fairly comfortable seeing around the frame (or not) . I'm used to both, although like most, I prefer the rangefinder way of seeing things.

As for shooting in public among the general population, hands down people react quite differently if I'm using the rangefinder vs. any full frame DSLR, even if I'm using fast single focal length lenses as opposed to bigger 70-200 f2.8 lenses. Even a smaller APS DSLR gets noticed in a different way than say a rangefinder, which most just assume its another P&S :) . So giving up the rangefinder for me, definitely looses some aninimity.

Now onto the possibilty of the next M9 (M10) being 30MP. Anything is possible but I believe that unlike Current Nikon technology, if that does happen, the improvement in high ISO performance while making that dramtic a leap in resolution, will either leave the ISO performance where it's at with the current M9 or a slight increase at best. The alternative might be to up the resolution more modestly, say to 24MP and eek out maybe a 1.5 to 2 stop high ISO improvement. For myself, for what I generally use a rangefinder for, I personally would rather see it stay at 18MP and improve the ISO performance greatly as opposed to the other senarios, especially when there are other camera alternatives in approaching bigger files/higher resolution.

Lastly comes the real possibilty of Nikon increasing the D3x resolution. I see this as the most likely senario. With Nikon's class leading technolgy in extracting rediculously clean high ISO performance in their files (like the D3s), I could see them now employing this in a future 30-35MP D4x. Even if they kept it at 24MP, then I would expect the D4x would make a hugh leap in high ISO performance as compared to the current D3x. If it stays at 24MP, then the S2 certainly keeps its place among potential candidates of what I would like to strive for. If a future D4x butt heads with a 30+ MP sensor with a greatly better high ISO performance over the current D3x, then that will be food for thought.

Of course what will be the costs for these potentially new cameras..thats also a consideration and no matter how high the resolution gets in a future M10 or D4x, there are still tangable advantages to both the larger chip in the S2 and some of the MF lenses and conversly, some real technical hurdles to get over by increasing the resolution greatly in cameras such as the M9 and D3x such as keeping the files clean and usable at these higher ISO's.

I don't recall, but has Leica ever mentioned an easy upgradable route to chip replacement when higher reolution chips are developed for the S2 body? This would also figure into the equation.

Guy and others are right...working with the system (any expensive system for that matter) for a few weeks can certainly be most relevent to making the ultimate decision...unfortunately its not always the easiest thing to do and as pointed out, unlike a low end DSLR, not something one can just turn around and view as a simple cost free mistake.

Anyway really good stuff so far! Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Now onto the possibilty of the next M9 (M10) being 30MP. Anything is possible but I believe that unlike Current Nikon technology, if that does happen, the improvement in high ISO performance while making that dramtic a leap in resolution, will either leave the ISO performance where it's at with the current M9 or a slight increase at best.
Hi Dave, all good points, but I think this one deserves a special answer.
Those of us who have been playing with the Pentax K5 have been using an APS-c sensor of 16mp with very very good clean 6400 ISO (you can print it to 12to17 without problem).. . . . . . . . . . a full frame sensor with that kind of pixel density would be more like 36mp . . . . . . . .

So I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility right now. If Pentax can do it with a Sony sensor, why couldn't Leica?

. . . . sorry folks, I've rather driven this off topic - I apologise - I'll take my anguish off elsewhere and pour a bottle of red wine down it:ROTFL:
 

D&A

Well-known member
Hi Dave, all good points, but I think this one deserves a special answer.
Those of us who have been playing with the Pentax K5 have been using an APS-c sensor of 16mp with very very good clean 6400 ISO (you can print it to 12to17 without problem).. . . . . . . . . . a full frame sensor with that kind of pixel density would be at least 30mp . . . . . . . .

So I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility right now. If Pentax can do it with a Sony sensor, why couldn't Leica?

. . . . sorry folks, I've rather driven this off topic - I apologise - I'll take my anguish off elsewhere and pour a bottle of red wine down it:ROTFL:
Hi Jono,

Yes, Pentax achieved this to some extent as has Nikon with their new D7000, which closely matches the K5 in specs and performance. I was thinking along the same lines as you when I wrote my post above but when I look at these RAW files at higher ISO's, (from say the K5 and D7000), they are not processed the same as say files from some of the other high ISO cameras such as the D3/D3s. Yes, I know a bit of apples vs. oranges (APS vs full frame), but the noise reduction algorthims and what they do to the files in these new crops of APS high ISO DSLRs, often times are a bit dicey for my tastes especially when extensive post processing is required/and or large scale prints are made. Don't get me wrong, its remarkable when compared to just a few short years ago. I aslo give credit to Pentax for trying to make up lost ground, espcially in their digital division, having shot with and used their higher end stuff for years and knew those in their optical & digital divisions here in the States quite well, until their recent merger/takeover.

---> just added (addition)...even when decent ISO 1600 files in APS DSLR's and ISO 3600 (and beyond) files in the full frame D700/D3x were technically possible, the M8 and especially the M9 respectfully could not match these cameras in high ISO performance, even though they seem to have been developed within a similar time frame. So those that develop Leica's electronics in their M digital series, clearly are not matching the most technilogical clean high ISO performance of these DSLR's. Therefore that's why I was judicious in my prediction just how many more MP Leica can add to a M10 and still offer improved high ISO performance. Based on the current track record, their just keeping current high ISO performance while increasing resolution in a future M10, would be an achievement.

These new technologies are certainly relevant, especially those that allow higher ISO's to be userful, but in pro oriented cameras such as a D3x, Canon Pro level bodies, S2 , M9 and other DMF's, they have to be used judiously, since the files themselves are going to be closely scrutinized by those who are well qualified to do so and the subsequent files must meet a stardard for thats beyond what average users sometimes requires, expects or even notices.

A bit early here for a glass of red wine, unless I want to find myself driving down a lone mountain road, looking for that elusive sunset to photograph on this completely overcast day :) . I think thats going to be a bit difficult to explain to the officer who pulls me over :) Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Dave
I think it's all rather simple. s2, m9 and MF cameras use CCD. Everything else is CMOS.
It's not so much about Leica/ Pentax technical knowhow as the sensor They choose.
Looking at the DXO figures for the new Sony sensor (same in d7000, sony a580, k5) is enlightening to say the least ( look at the DR figures). I'm quite sure that this tech will be in the next round of FF sensors from Nikon and Sony. As for the RAW files, 3000 shots in with the Pentax have proved to me that they are very malleable, with the best shadow recovery I've seen in anything.
But this really is off topic!
 
Top