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!

The Leica S2 System and Image Quality

tjv

Active member
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
Price aside, the S2 is everything I want in a camera. I'd love to use one because I actually need many of the features to make the kind of images I want. Resolution is one important thing, but weather sealing and handling are two just as important features for me. At the moment I am probably best served sticking with my Mamiya 7ii kit and film, drum scanning and being careful in the rain. I like the bigger neg area and the pictorial effect it gives with regard to depth of field so going to 35mm or even the new S2 format might be a step in the wrong direction anyway when considering I need a certain continuity between the look of images in my current long term projects. I'm waiting for the day that this kind of technology is in the realms of affordability for art and documentary photographers that don't make a killing from client based work. In the mean time, I guess the old film based MF and LF equipment is more than good enough to deliver the goods when not under strict time constraints and deadlines. For many of you, I suspect you're on the opposite end of the spectrum from me and time is money. I don't envy you!
 

PeterA

Well-known member
thanks for the link John - looks like an R series camera only fatter - wondering if the 40 megapixel chip has anything to do with that ? -:)

oh and yes I too think "it is absolutely lovely"
 

doug

Well-known member
... Price aside, the S2 is everything I want in a camera. I'd love to use one because I actually need many of the features to make the kind of images I want. Resolution is one important thing, but weather sealing and handling are two just as important features for me.
+1

Get that 350mm APO-Elmar-S on the market, a 1.4x APO-Extender-S and an extension tube and the price will seem a little less a problem for me.
 

Sharokin

New member
Am I the only person here who thinks the S2 should have came with a CMOS sensor that offered superior high asa to any CCD, with a lower cost? What's the point of a camera that is targeted for people to do handheld photography but has limited high asa?
With high end 35mm sensors being so good now the only reason to shoot MF is for the large sensor (somewhat).
 

Christopher

Active member
Well Sharokin I have the same oppinion, that a S2 with a 39Mp CMOS, with all modern features and no AA Filter would have been a much better and interesting choice. However most here will tell you how much better their loved CCDs really are ;-)
 

tjv

Active member
Does anyone even make CMOS sensors that large? I'm wondering if it's more a supply and manufacturing cost and / or technology issue than a deliberate preference for CCDs. I like the low ISO ccd images better but that's splitting hairs. What I'd really want is a MF version of my D700.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
CMOS sensors have no different size constraints compared to CCD.
OTOH, most CMOS sensors are custom chips entirely and development cost would be much much higher. This is one reason why smallish camera manufacturers use CCD since the do not have the manufacturing scale to amortize the incremental R&D.
The primary reason to select a CCD sensor is the tradeoff between a to d converter linearity and image noise. Off-sensor a to d converters are potentially better, but CMOS sensors can be made to readout faster. Although theoretically, there is no noise difference between the two, system level noise often pollutes images made with CCD sensors before shot noise does.
-bob
 

Christopher

Active member
That is one of the main problems, MF is stuck with the stuff Kodak and Dalsa gives them. (simplified) I am still quite sure, that we won't see any real innovations until one of the large companies does change to CMOS for their next Gen chip. However I have the feeling that won't happen in the next gen backs.
 

LJL

New member
I sadly think your perspective on that is correct, Christopher. Kodak and Dalsa could make the changes and start fabbing CMOS sensors, but that is going to take a lot of investment over time. Sony and Nikon stepped out to do that, and both struggled on their first attempts. Sony could be in a position to fab CMOS sensors for the next gen MF backs, but there is still going to be a production volume issue. Canon does its own design and fab, and are probably not going to bother selling to others, just as they have not to this point.

So, if there is transition to CMOS at some point for MF, the first go around may not have the kinks worked out, and they also will not be cheap.

LJ
 

Christopher

Active member
I personally think in the next year there will be three interesting things.

- the two new flagships from Canon and Sony (I have the feeling Sony won't share their newest gen right away with Nikon)
- How RED will do when actually shipping cameras with larger CMOS sensors
- What the next gen of MFDB will look like. ( Who want's to bet whether Phase will upgrade their back display :p ? )
 

markowich

New member
I personally think in the next year there will be three interesting things.

- the two new flagships from Canon and Sony (I have the feeling Sony won't share their newest gen right away with Nikon)
- How RED will do when actually shipping cameras with larger CMOS sensors
- What the next gen of MFDB will look like. ( Who want's to bet whether Phase will upgrade their back display :p ? )
yes and this will make the S2 look volder than it is already now before its launch. an amazing misjudgement on leica's part. who is interested in another 160-250 iso camera?
peter
 

tjv

Active member
If you shoot for a living for well paying clients, then the investment in an S2 system or equivalent setup is not such a big deal. Not saying any system is "cheap," but these things are tools and as such should be used enough to pay for themselves. I'm not going to wait a year to buy a higher spec'd computer if I need one now. It's a matter of deciding on cost vs. benefits. Soon the S2 will be out and all interested can try one for themselves. Until then lets give it a chance.
 

Riccis

New member
I shot the S2 at a party tonight (sticking to my documentary style, of course) and was surprised how responsive it was, I felt like I was using a DSLR and not a MF camera, the AF definitely impressed me.

I know you guys are going to think I'm crazy and, of course this is not the way the S2 is supposed to be used but I have not shot in about a week and decided to have some fun :D

Another surprising feature was how light the S2 and 70 Summarit are, heck even the 180 was not that bad.

Cheers,
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I shot the S2 at a party tonight (sticking to my documentary style, of course) and was surprised how responsive it was, I felt like I was using a DSLR and not a MF camera, the AF definitely impressed me.

I know you guys are going to think I'm crazy and, of course this is not the way the S2 is supposed to be used but I have not shot in about a week and decided to have some fun :D

Another surprising feature was how light the S2 and 70 Summarit are, heck even the 180 was not that bad.

Cheers,
Great feedback, this is exactly the info I want to get in addition to the more technical and pixel counting reviews.

IQ is only one part of the game, although a very important one, but if the whole system gets ugly and heavy to use then this is predicting a clear end for me.

The S2 seems to handle all this pretty good.
 

GMB

Active member
Upon reading David Farkas' excellent review of the S2, notably the remarks about the narrow depth of field, the question occurred to me "Why does the S2 or its lenses don't have image stabilization?". If the goal of the S2 was to create a "mobile" digital MF camera, would it not have made sense to include image stabilization, as this would have greatly helped to shoot hand held and nevertheless achieve a reasonable depth of field at low (=high quality) ISO settings? As far as I know, on a Canon or Nikon you gain about 3 stops with image stabilization.

Of course, the simple answer may be that image stabilization for a MF camera is much more difficult and expensive than for a 35mm DSLR.

I am also curious to see how the 35 mm lens will perform and whether it permits to obtain images that are sharp from foreground to background. If ever I were to get a medium format system (and I am toying with the idea:)) I would want to use it for landscape.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
permits to obtain images that are sharp from foreground to background. If ever I were to get a medium format system (and I am toying with the idea:)) I would want to use it for landscape.
If you want images sharp from foreground to background and want to shoot landscape, your best friend is going to be a good tripod, not IS...
 

LJL

New member
Image stabilization might be nice, but it could also be more difficult to achieve with the much larger MF systems. If Leica went more the route Canon and Nikon have with IS/VR that is driven by lens motors, the S2 lenses might become rather more bulky and lose some of their sleekness, as well as create a much more difficult build process. If the image stabilization were inside the camera body, it might introduce some other difficulties with sufficient reaction speed for moving a much larger sensor and keeping it in proper register. There is also the issue of the AF sensor, and how big it is or is not to accurately drive an AF system. The image stabilizing systems work much more easily on smaller cameras, as there is less mass to move for corrections, the AF systems cover a greater area of the image, and there is inherently more DOF with the smaller sensors to start. Once you start getting to MF sizes, I think things get a bit more difficult. Not sure.

Not saying it could not be done, nor that it would be unwelcome, but it would probably add significant costs and weight to lenses, as well as to design. Not even sure how a lens driven stabilizer would work with leaf shutter lenses, if that was the chosen method. If the IS was kept in the body, I think mirror slap and even shutter movement inside would create much more internal vibration that might be a lot harder to tame. Just speculating on this....

LJ
 
Top