The Leica S2 System and Image Quality

[Guy Mancuso]

IS is for wimps. LOL

Okay could not resist.

Actually doing IS would seriously make the lenses bigger and bulkier and certainly add more costs. Besides that battery issues may arise to shortening a already short life on these cams. MF takes a lot of juice just to run and the more things you have fighting for power than things will get slower than they already are. Really we are just starting to see raw throughput increase with sensors over 31 mpx . The S2 and P40+ backs are examples of increasing shooting speed and this just started to come to life over the 31 mpx mark. On paper the s2 is pretty darn fast with shooting speeds and also just for example my P30+ back is 1.5 seconds before the next shot, now bigger back in the P40+ that has been reduced to .8 seconds between frames. The S2 is even faster which makes it appealing. But if they added IS to it than it is very possible it may slow it down some. It would be a balancing act and just the increase per lens cost may be the death of MF altogether.

 

[GMB]

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...

Of course -- I never intended to suggest that IS would replace a tripod for landscape. I just wonder how much depth of field one can achieve with that lens, for example if you stop don to f16 or more. I could not find any DOF charts on the Leica website.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Bottom line on DOF from 35mm to MF is about 2 stops or more increase and that will increase with bigger sensors. The S2 being the smallest in this category over 31mpx it will have the most DOF but as you go up in sensor size that will decrease. Think P&S to 35mm , really the same principles here. The bigger the sensor gets the less DOF .

Your options are stopping down or do focus stacking and one program is excellent at it Helicon focus . For landscape shooters a very good tool to have in your box of tricks.

 

[David K]

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

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

Cheers,

Riccis, I'm guessing you went to the opening of the Palm Beach Photographic Center. I'm looking forward to shooting that same kit tomorrow morning.

 

[glenerrolrd]

I don t understand why getting a decent profile out is such a big deal. Leica introduces the M9 and gives away LR without a profile. Within days custom profiles are available on the LUF . My guess is that Adobe could create a custom profile within a few days if it was important to them.

Even if the firmware is still being refined..big deal pick a version and develop a profile

 

[doug]

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?".

Optical image stabilization and optimum image quality don't go together. Optical image stabilization can make a marginal situation much better but since its operating principle requires de-centering lens elements you get sub-optimum edges when IS is operating, and even when the IS module is off and locked and assuming it's perfectly centered when locked the additional air/glass surfaces will cause additional internal reflections, increasing flare and reducing contrast and color saturation.

 

[Christopher]

Well or not. See the new Canon 100 macro IS. There probably aren't any better lenses out there. Not even zeiss or Leica and yes it has IS.

The main problem with IS, that it is getting really expensive with larger image circles and lenses.

 

[doug]

Well or not. See the new Canon 100 macro IS. There probably aren't any better lenses out there. Not even zeiss or Leica and yes it has IS.

You'll see the difference if you compare lenses that incorporate similar design and manufacturing technology aside from IS. Or, you can compare Canon's EF 300mm f/4 IS and non-IS lenses. The newer lens ought to be better, having the benefit of newer design technology, right? It's not. The IS lens doesn't perform as well.

IS is a real benefit for most photographers because their technique isn't as good as the camera's capabilities. IS equalizes the equipment's and photographers' abilities. A MF user most likely uses better technique than the typical photographer.

 

[Sharokin]

You'll see the difference if you compare lenses that incorporate similar design and manufacturing technology aside from IS. Or, you can compare Canon's EF 300mm f/4 IS and non-IS lenses. The newer lens ought to be better, having the benefit of newer design technology, right? It's not. The IS lens doesn't perform as well.

Doug,

The current generation Canon long lenses (300 2.8L-600 4.0L) with IS are better than previous generation long lenses without IS.

 

[Christopher]

As is the IS version of the macro. I don't even comment the last arrogant part.

 

[fotografz]

Well or not. See the new Canon 100 macro IS. There probably aren't any better lenses out there. Not even zeiss or Leica and yes it has IS.

Really? I didn't know Canon made the new 100/2.8 Macro IS an APO design like the Leica 100/2.8 APO Macro.

 

[doug]

You'll see the difference if you compare lenses that incorporate similar design and manufacturing technology aside from IS. Or, you can compare Canon's EF 300mm f/4 IS and non-IS lenses. The newer lens ought to be better, having the benefit of newer design technology, right? It's not. The IS lens doesn't perform as well.

Doug,

The current generation Canon long lenses (300 2.8L-600 4.0L) with IS are better than previous generation long lenses without IS.

Sure but that's different generations.

 

[doug]

As is the IS version of the macro. I don't even comment the last arrogant part.

Nothing arrogant about it. Different markets.

 

[PeterA]

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...

In a two factor world ( IS /tripod) Jack is spot on - I would add though, that on the tripod you should put a camera that allows you to use tilt if you are chasing extreme DOF - if you cant do that at least a camera that allows you to use a tilt /shift lens....

 

[Christopher]

Well I don't care about an APO design or not, if one can't say which is which lens once processed and printed ....

 

[PeterA]

Sure they can depends on really several factors but a easy one is how many units does it take to get back the ROI on that investment. You can do it several ways lower the cost increase the volume of the units being sold or sell high and don't sell as many units. You can get there both ways. The slippery slope here and what i hoped Leica would have done is get as many in the door easily with less costs and sell more or even more important sell more lenses to more people and actually come out way ahead of the game. This is where leica and i differ on pricing. BUT

Lets say we have 50 members right here on the forum and all 50 would buy if the price was lower but we have maybe 3 that will buy whatever it is. Now sit there as a OEM and tell me you would rather sell to 3 instead of 50. Now who is right and who is missing the boat. Now lets ask the 47 poor bastard that can't afford it how they feel. Obviously price is subjective and all that stuff but honestly that is just simple dumb *** logic there and we are all sitting here scratching our heads figuring if there is reason to go rob the bank for one. To me that is not good, you as a company want as many customers as you can get and that base grows into new customers and get that Leica itch that people have. LOL

Guy - thats not how the economics of manufacturing niche products works.
What any company has to do is optimise a whole bunch of variables in order to maximise return. aximising volume in many cases ( ironically) is a fast way to bankruptcy - did you know most companies that go broke - go broke because they are being too successful at maximising volume - without taking into account the other important variables?

Implicit in your example of 3 versus 47 is a price point that is way away from a deeper market - but it may be a price point that more than satisfies Leica's stay in business financial measures. 3/50 suggetss a market share of 6%. Apple computers actually calculates its market share at less than 10% - would you rather have a share in Apple or any other computer manufacturer over the last 5 years?


There are many companies who make fantastic returns with market shares less than 1%. Of course this raises a whole bunch of issues about defining actual market. Maybe Leica will actually capture more than 90% of its definition of its market....

In a commodity market - price is pretty much fixed. The variables exasperating Hasselblad from Phase One arent many - Leica is counting on a much more differentiated product strategy 9 which DOESNT MEAN being the best at everything) and a different price point.

 

[ptomsu]

I do meanwhile actually not care about market share of a vendor, as long as they are successful with that product and show a lear future strategy.

This future strategy is what I would like to see a bit more from Leica in order to really feel comfortable with their system.

But if it comes to future strategy also others have their flaws:

Hasselblad closing their system from H3D upwards and bringing new body improvements every 18 months - why can't they just do one big great turn? Or when will they bring a focal plane shutter model - will this be then the H5D???

Phase developing a new camera model for years and then still have the same bad battery implementation? Should be at least the same battery for camera and back if it needs to be 2 separate batteries, which is of course an advantage in some cases.

So there are many variables and none of the MF vendors out there today is close to being perfect in all areas.

 

[mtomalty]

Really? I didn't know Canon made the new 100/2.8 Macro IS an APO design like the Leica 100/2.8 APO Macro.

I've been using the 100 APO macro for over a decade,first on R8's
and more recently on Canon digital bodies.

I picked up the new Canon 100 macro IS last week and apart from
expected construction differences the Canon is, optically, the equal
of the 100 apo. Sharpness is,for all intents and purposes, equal and optical defects are non-existent in both lenses.


Mark
www.marktomalty.com

 

[carstenw]

Well I don't care about an APO design or not, if one can't say which is which lens once processed and printed ....

Prints can hide many problems, but that is not a good definition for the quality of a lens. Maybe you don't care, but one lens can still be better than the other in real ways.

 

[Christopher]

Well, first of all, you are right, that I don't give a ****, what one could see (or imagine) to see at 100% or 200% on screen... Secondly some lenses CAN be better, but the 100 apo just isn't. I don't have the new Canon lens, but the old one which is already really good oh and yes I had the Leica apo, as I have/had 10 other Leica R lesnes for my Canons. That does not mean that just because there is a red dot or the Leica name on something it is the best .......