Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 67

Thread: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

  1. #1
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    apologies if this was posted before:

    Hasselblad H4D: Versuch einer Standortbestimmung | photoscala

    it is an interesting comparism of the H4D40/50 and the S2. it shows that Hasselblad's software works extremely well and one might be lead to conclude that the H4D40 wins out against the S2 due to its optimized software.
    peter
    (crossposted at the Leica S2 forum)

  2. #2
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Man where have I said that before. LOL

    Just a firm believer in software dedicated to this system as Hassy , Phase, Leaf and Sinar are doing
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  3. #3
    Member markowich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridge (UK) and Vienna
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Man where have I said that before. LOL

    Just a firm believer in software dedicated to this system as Hassy , Phase, Leaf and Sinar are doing
    Impressive though that leica's lens superiority gets totally wiped out by the software deficiences. P

  4. #4
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test


  5. #5
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by markowich View Post
    Impressive though that leica's lens superiority gets totally wiped out by the software deficiences. P
    How do we even know that Leica's glass is better, lol... could it be a case of lower quality glass needing higher quality software?
    (that was a JOKE!!!)



    (kind of)

    mods... feel free to delete this comment.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby Lewis View Post
    How do we even know that Leica's glass is better, lol... could it be a case of lower quality glass needing higher quality software?
    (that was a JOKE!!!)
    It's kind of an interesting blend of optimized software versus masking deficiencies. The Hassy 28 mm comes to mind. They cut corners on lens design because it was effectively easier to "fix it in post," but the end result is a stellar lens/camera/software combo that would not otherwise be possible. The new Phocus is a pretty nice piece of software from an image quality standpoint -- credit where due.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby Lewis View Post
    How do we even know that Leica's glass is better, lol... could it be a case of lower quality glass needing higher quality software?
    (that was a JOKE!!!)
    Hi Shelby,

    FWIW, Erwin Puts tells us his findings here:

    http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera...4/s2part2.html

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill_Green View Post
    The new Phocus is a pretty nice piece of software from an image quality standpoint -- credit where due.
    Fully agree. Last week I've tried Phocus on my a900 files and like it a lot! I can only dream of what dedicated software like this would for Leica S files.

  9. #9
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby Lewis View Post
    How do we even know that Leica's glass is better, lol... could it be a case of lower quality glass needing higher quality software?
    (that was a JOKE!!!)



    (kind of)

    mods... feel free to delete this comment.
    Gutsy statement! But needed. I am pleased to see someone trying to keep a lighter tone on what has become a rather testy subject; the S2.

    Actually though, it does all seem to be software (and maybe therefore improvable in the future - S2 people, keep your raws

    Detail seems the same. It looks mostly like contrast and saturation to me. The H seems more pleasing, but not necessarily better. What I see the Phocus doing is relieving a lot of post touch-up. REALLY would be nice to get an S2 profile.

    That siad, I can't believe th S2 and Hassey shots were really color balanced correctly.

    BTW, does Phocus do DMG files?

    Victor

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tubac, Arizona
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Victor,
    If you mean .dng files such as those produced by the DMR the answer is Yes. I just ran a file to check and Phocus will do it.
    Lawrence

  11. #11
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    These tests are fully reflecting my opinion about MF systems which started to build up during my last years comparisons and are now repeatedly confirmed by my own work and test like this one.

    The achievable IQ produced by a digital MF system is a combination of camera, lenses and software. Hasselblad with Phocus and Phase with C1 are doing great here, Leica with S2 have the disadvantage of no really optimized SW. I do NOT understand why Leica gives away their advantage of designing great glass by not offering their own post processing SW. Sorry to say but this is the real killer of such an expensive system.

    I would really love to use the S system instead of a bulky H system, if they offered their own SW plus a full lineup of lenses and of course a more attractive price for the S2 itself.

    Great feeling to have made the right decision and go the Hasselblad route!

  12. #12
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Peter,
    I agree...even wind up here agreeing with Guy

    The key is the raw conversion. I don't think it is just a profile; the raw data in Phase and I assume Hasselblad contain clues on the whole begining to end development needs; color balance, corrections, noise, dead and hot pixels and the ever elusive 'conversion' of the linear bayer data (or log data in Leica compressed)

    If they can do the latter, one would assume they could empirically come up with a S2 specific conversion... or is there a way that someone else can?

    For some reason the M9 gets pretty good files from generic DNG (yes thx, meant dNg :-) ) but S2 is much more sophisticated. My guess is that Leica will do it, if there is IQ to squeeze out.

    HOWEVER, the clocks and calendars at Leica do not seem to conform to those used by the rest of the world...

    Victor

  13. #13
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Guy is never wrong. Chinese proverb.

    I'm joking of course
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  14. #14
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Victor,

    indeed, H is doing so much in their RAW conversion in Phocus already, that the images falling out of just importing the RAWs into Phocus is eye opening. And after some individual adjustments the resulting IQ is stunning.

    Must admit that I Phocus has still some lacks in terms of speed and usability of the whole tool, where current C1 Pro is a clear winner. But H is going there - slowly but consequently. So I am convinced that with one of the next Phocus releases it will do all I want from such a SW package (I also do NOT use ALL the functionality of C1 Pro!!!)

    But Leica - well they made a big mistake in not offering their own RAW converter - or plug in into some third party SW. As you say, DNG is nice but cannot offer obviously the same IQ as individual RAW conversions.

  15. #15
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by gogopix View Post
    Peter,
    I agree...even wind up here agreeing with Guy
    Victor
    Never thought I would read these words from you Victor I always had you squarely in the "glass is the key" camp.

  16. #16
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    I still believe that; however, in the world of digital, the playing field changes. GLASS is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Getting the rays of light to the sensor is only the first step. I wish it were otherwise, but Bayer matrix, micro-lenses or not (and assymmetry of lenses) etc all mean that the individual RGB has some 'magic sauce' to squeeze the right image out.

    I will admit, Leica, for all their mechanical and optical expertise is still a beginner in their processing (the wonderful DMR took third party help).

    For me, the S2 images are already pretty close to showing the strength of the body and the lenses; there still lacks the extra ease of 'developing' to a ProRGB tiff that is "Print ready" or PS ready.

    And we have clear evidence from C1 vs ACR for Phase files and Phocus vs others for hassey (if they could do it at all!) that the dedicated is superior. If I were a working pro, I would grouse too about the S2's lack of final refined developing.

    HOWEVER, in the meantime the other advantages, the ability to tweak on your own in LR, make the S2 a sterling performer RIGHT NOW. But it is not effieicnt takes time (although some of the jpgs are pretty damn good right off the card see below....I woulkd like to see more punch, better exposure and DR maybe a tad increase in local contrast. All doable in LR, about 10 min a shot--- not what a pro wants to hear! (no, I didn't try. Maybe one of the LR mavens here would like to try. I have the raw file and will send, although as Guy said, he has many available here. Who knows, maybe someone will invent the 'magic sauce' right here.)

    This fixable, and pretty easilt; either a third party will step in (maybe with a Jamie Roberts profile for starters) or Leica will develop a raw plugin.

    We'll see..

    Victor

    PS But, BTW, the colors are spot on..dreary day funny colors (gotta love the forklift LOL)
    Last edited by gogopix; 13th June 2010 at 06:49.

  17. #17
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Victor

    At the risk of exposing my ignorance , I don t understand why you would select an overcast capture for purposing of discussing IQ? The bluish color cast desaturates the image and makes it flat. Bare with me on how I would approach this image in LR ..I am trying to learn something by putting out a POV.

    Because this capture has a workable DR it looks easy to correct. Start with WB ..the cabin of the ship is white and in normal light I bet even toward the warm side . I would balance the scene off the cabin. This immediately removes the bluish cast and saturates the red the hull etc. If it looks too warm then I back off but as presented the image looks to cold.

    White and black points looked good . To add punch I generally add +10 to the light tones and -10 to the dark tones . The light tones need to be brightened because its an overcast day. This is almost a std "S" curve ( I learned this from Jack and I use it as a preset works probably 80-90% of the time).

    I always add clarity to separate the mid tones +20 and depending on the desired color +5 vibrance. More on the D3X less on the M9 but a good starting point.

    I always use the LR landscape sharpening preset.

    If I had that light I would apply those as a batch process to every image.

    Lots of ways to accomplish the same things .

    I am not posting this as a critique but I honestly don t understand what people are referring too as taking 10 minutes an image. What exactly would you be working on?

    What is difficult to separate out ,when doing comparisons between raw processors, is the IQ that is being derived thru superior conversion algorithms ,differences in profiles and the conversion presets .

    Ok feel free to have at my POV ..I just don t get it?

  18. #18
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    It is fair to say I think, that the final image is a result of the entire imaging chain. I will go out on a limb a bit to also assert that with digital, "great glass" assuming that could be defined is significantly less important than with film. Remember that the legendary lens makers earned their reputations during the film age and have to some degree benefited from that long ago earned halo.
    Even in film days, the look of a lens could be varied somewhat by the development technique, "sharper" developers would essentially create what we now refer to as "sharpening artifacts" due to local development agent exhaustion at image edges.

    Today, sometimes it is one thing in the chain that is the obvious weak link. AA filters come to mind, but for some applications moire is a plague (wedding shooters raise your hand), so they have a good application when well balanced.
    There are some digital artifacts that cannot be resolved no matter how complicated, by lens design (cosine law effects, for example).
    Once software becomes part of that image processing chain, then there are all sorts of possibilities on improving and correcting what the combination of lens and sensor deliver, and that is always true despite the degree of lens and sensor "perfection" at least to-date. Design of all things is a balance of costs, goals, and imperfections, a compromise so to speak. All the "no compromise" rhetoric in the world can't change this.

    If one uses jpeg camera files, the processing is limited to that recipe installed in the camera, and often that is limited by the limited processing power available to deliver the acceptable frames per second. A computer based raw processor mostly removes that constraint and gives wonderful controls.

    The difference between a lens that provides 60% and 80% central contrast at say 30-40lpm is covered easily by just a small slider adjustment in post.

    So, and to the extreme, if your finished product is the print, there are further complications that make some of the differences in lenses and sensors even less significant; each paper and printer and size combination has its own "best" processing.

    The important invarient characteristics that are important in image making has a little more to do with the DR, linearity, and noise characteristics of the sensor and the choice made by the sensor maker of the shapes of the response curves of the filters used for each bayer primary.

    So I mostly agree that the result is the significant point, and that there are a number of choices that can yield equivalent results in the finished product.

    Those manufacturers that have a rich software capability well matched with their camera and lens system are less disadvantaged than those that do not.
    -bob
    Last edited by Bob; 13th June 2010 at 13:04.

  19. #19
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Well said Bob.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Well said Bob.
    +1

    I have a goofy analogy ... back in my reckless youth I raced muscle cars. A friend bought a small Chevy model with a huge Chevy racing engine installed in an effort to blow the doors off my Plymouth Road Runner. Time-and-again I creamed him ... he went back time-after-time and spent more and more money ... yet never won.

    On paper he should have walked away from me right from the beginning ... yet despite vastly out horse powering me, he never got all the parts working together. My "basic stock" car had been throughly tuned, and all performance aspects coordinated by a freelance team of Chrysler engineers for about $250.

    IMO, optical "horsepower" is just one part of the equation in a digital world.

    -Marc

  21. #21
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Victor

    At the risk of exposing my ignorance , I don t understand why you would select an overcast capture for purposing of discussing IQ? The bluish color cast desaturates the image and makes it flat. Bare with me on how I would .................................cut.............. ..........................................to every image.

    Lots of ways to accomplish the same things .

    I am not posting this as a critique but I honestly don t understand what people are referring too as taking 10 minutes an image. What exactly would you be working on?

    What is difficult to separate out ,when doing comparisons between raw processors, is the IQ that is being derived thru superior conversion algorithms ,differences in profiles and the conversion presets .

    Ok feel free to have at my POV ..I just don t get it?
    I think you answered your own question!

    I selected a shot that needed a good raw processor to get the exposure, color, contrast etc. closer to what might be an interesting photo. I actually did "AUTO" for exposure and WB in LR... but no reference for Leica files. I assume with a profile/pre-set-magic sauce one would get a pretty good image to work with. I believe, in this file there is a pretty damn could file; IQ that is. But, well, we don't see it.

    Bob's discussion, your comments etc all point to what is frustrating-a system that is not yet end to end complete.

    Maybe this is the wrong rant. Maybe what is needed is careful adjustments in LR, saved as a pre-set, and then applied to draw out the best of the IQ.

    Maybe I am expecting too much, that is, raw processing may remain an 'art' and each image needs tweaking. That's not what I hear from the Hasselblad/Phocus people, or the C1 (though I can tell you, my P65+ has a damn mind of its own sometime

    Well, no easy solution, but I still contend that S2 files are likely very good, maybe even great sometimes, but it's like pulling teeth to see it

    Victor

    PS What I said about color was correct; an overcast day IS a bluish cast day. You get that 'ghostly blue' feeling. The French even call twilight "l'heure bleue'
    of course this was oposite, AM

    Maybe Leica has it right; an overcast image should convey overcast. To do a WB and make look like 5500 maybe is WRONG?
    Last edited by gogopix; 13th June 2010 at 14:25.

  22. #22
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    I can get "adequate to smashing" results without fiddling around with either Hassy or Phase.
    But... adequate to smashing is not Optimal.
    I don't know about S2, all the files I have have a disclaimer attached about preliminary this or that.
    So I don't know what i have, but I can assure you that they are neither adequate nor smashing nor anywhere in between.
    But this was before LR 3 and maybe the latest fw release, so I hold my tongue.
    -bob

  23. #23
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Well, I think saying that all available S2 files do not reach the 'adequate' level could start at least a MILD discussion
    (Were you suggesting? hinting? just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, Bob.)

    Anyway, maybe LR 3 and some profiles will help. What I would like is a straightforward way to get files like this from the S2... (FWIW, well critiqued, and actually well sold! )

    Yes I made a few more tweaks for printing, but this P65+ file from C1 was pretty easy to get

    Victor

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    76

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    I don't profess to be a color or image expert. However, I don't have to be an expert to compare two identical images taken by different cameras and choose which one I prefer - that is, if there is enough difference in the images to have a preference. Heck, I don't even have to know why I prefer on over another. My preferences in image quality may be very different than some else.

    I spend a good bit of time looking at photos on the internet, books, and galleries because I enjoy it. The fact is there are many photos which I really like that are so far from technically perfect it wouldn't have mattered whether they were taken with a camera whose files were processed with a dedicated raw processor or medium format for that matter.

    My point is that dedicated raw processors (or not) and optimal image quality is only part of the equation in a camera purchase decision. It doesn't matter how good the image quality of a camera is if you don't like it and won't use it. I chose the S2 because its ergonomics fit me perfectly and the comparisons I did just didn't show me the Phase or Hassy competitors were better. I concluded the S2 held its own IQ-wise (my opinion, maybe not yours). Plus, I expect the S2 processing to only get better as the system and raw converters mature. The Phase and Hassy cameras are less expensive than the S2, but I was willing to pay the difference to get the S2 ergonomics and user experience.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    76

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    For discussion's sake, the following three S2 photos were processed in seconds in LR3. I used a preset on import and then made a couple final tweaks (crop in one and white balance another). These photos were taken last week when the Hot Rod Magazine Power Tour 2010 came through town. It was great.

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    76

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Haha, I just noticed the three images I chose to post all have similar angles to them. That was unintentional and curious at the same time.

  27. #27
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by gogopix View Post
    I think you answered your own question!

    I selected a shot that needed a good raw processor to get the exposure, color, contrast etc. closer to what might be an interesting photo. I actually did "AUTO" for exposure and WB in LR... but no reference for Leica files. I assume with a profile/pre-set-magic sauce one would get a pretty good image to work with. I believe, in this file there is a pretty damn could file; IQ that is. But, well, we don't see it.

    Bob's discussion, your comments etc all point to what is frustrating-a system that is not yet end to end complete.

    Maybe this is the wrong rant. Maybe what is needed is careful adjustments in LR, saved as a pre-set, and then applied to draw out the best of the IQ.

    Maybe I am expecting too much, that is, raw processing may remain an 'art' and each image needs tweaking. That's not what I hear from the Hasselblad/Phocus people, or the C1 (though I can tell you, my P65+ has a damn mind of its own sometime

    Well, no easy solution, but I still contend that S2 files are likely very good, maybe even great sometimes, but it's like pulling teeth to see it

    Victor

    PS What I said about color was correct; an overcast day IS a bluish cast day. You get that 'ghostly blue' feeling. The French even call twilight "l'heure bleue'
    of course this was oposite, AM

    Maybe Leica has it right; an overcast image should convey overcast. To do a WB and make look like 5500 maybe is WRONG?
    Victor

    Now I better understand. I work almost exclusively with LR . I never use auto tone or wb ever. I am surprised that if you used auto wb in Lr that it didn t warm up the image. I didn t realize this was common usage in say C1 and that you were happy with the results.

    As I understand it from prior discussions that three elements come together in the raw developer (1) the algorithms that decode the raw file (e.g. LR new 2010 engine) (2) the profiles (Lr has dozens for say the Nikon files) that map the colors to a specific pallet ) and (3) the presets that define your settings for any setting in the development (tone curve ,sharpening,noise reduction etc). In a proprietary product all three of these can be tuned to the specific raw file ...thus out of box excellent results. I am sure I missed something but I believe this is close.

    But knowing how Lr works how can you (1) not have a camera specific profile and (2) not use a preset that matches your files ?


    I think your example shows that LR will not automatically correct the type of file you presented. It won t do that for any raw file at least as you described C1 working with a Phase raw file .

    PS ....I ve been printing color since I was 15 and I certainly get the fact that the light was bluish. My point was that the color saturation would benefit from being warmer(unless its important to be accurate) . I do this visually but I would work the cab to neutral then back off to retain the mood of the rendering.

    I only mentioned this because it has been repeatedly mentioned that it takes 10 minutes an image to get decent results. Someone tell me exactly what takes 10 minutes an image to optimize the image presented in LR .

  28. #28
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Gowin View Post
    For discussion's sake, the following three S2 photos were processed in seconds in LR3. I used a preset on import and then made a couple final tweaks (crop in one and white balance another). These photos were taken last week when the Hot Rod Magazine Power Tour 2010 came through town. It was great.
    Thanks for posting these Mark... there are things I love and don't love about these. I love your shots, for one thing...

    The more I look at the S2 files, the more I tend to see two things... 1) a unique lens signature in line with high quality European optics (yay!)... and 2) a look (on the web) that has a "not quite acute enough SOOC, so I need to pre-sharpen more" quality about it. Much like DSLR files, only on steroids

    (on the web... so take that for what it's worth)

    I wonder if, given a lower price point, this camera would be a fantastic portrait camera. I could never afford it, unfortunately, so I don't even want to try it for fear of liking it too much for my type of work. We know it'll work for fashion... but given the slightly less "biting" rendering from the files, but with the nice optical signature... it gives my pause. Post work on MF files for simple portraits can get exhausting from the several samples I've fully worked with (I don't own an MF camera). Too much bite to begin with, but excellent color depth and malleability. Just speculation... but, maybe Leica wanted this camera to sit between the two worlds, and we're only now seeing that it's not meant to be a hassy or a phase competitor in strict MF terms. Maybe it's meant to be a MF-file-size-capable-DSLR with IQ on par with just about anything out there but with the edge slightly taken off the files to offer a bit more utility to the higher volume shooter.

    Who knows... I'm just thinking out loud at this point in an attempt to make sense of a camera that I find very compelling and very puzzling at the same time! Mark, I think you do it justice with your samples (for web sized stuff!)

    ... even though I still don't know how good it really is due to my own lack of working through lots of files on my own.

    (so, IOW, feel free to disregard my opinion... )

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Guy and Jack: Do you mind if I post one of your S2 DNG files from your review, converted in Lightroom 3 here? I'm looking at the file on screen and am pretty impressed with the look of it and detail and I've only done basic, 2 mins worth of editing. I'm wondering what others might think of my efforts considering the above comments about processing.

  30. #30
    Senior Member GMB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Heart of Europe
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    Guy and Jack: Do you mind if I post one of your S2 DNG files from your review, converted in Lightroom 3 here? I'm looking at the file on screen and am pretty impressed with the look of it and detail and I've only done basic, 2 mins worth of editing. I'm wondering what others might think of my efforts considering the above comments about processing.
    I certainly would be interrested in seeing the result.

  31. #31
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Gowin View Post
    I don't profess .................................................. .................

    I chose the S2 because its ergonomics fit me perfectly and the comparisons I did just didn't show me the Phase or Hassy competitors were better. I concluded the S2 held its own IQ-wise (my opinion, maybe not yours). Plus, I expect the S2 processing to only get better as the system and raw converters mature. The Phase and Hassy cameras are less expensive than the S2, but I was willing to pay the difference to get the S2 ergonomics and user experience.
    Yes, that's the point; S2 ergonomics won't change, nor will Hassey or Contax or Phase Cam. As all systems move from good to excellent in IQ, it would seem to make the S2 a better investment than say a body that was clumsy in you hands, or where you had a question about the glass (FLAME WARNING e.g. will the S-K lenses with CS appear in your lifetime)

    I am looking at my 4th rotator cuff surgery... ergonomics have ceased being a minor issue. Would I risk my shoulder for a better file....

    ... I think I'll take the 5th on that one
    Last edited by gogopix; 14th June 2010 at 05:04.

  32. #32
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    Guy and Jack: Do you mind if I post one of your S2 DNG files from your review, converted in Lightroom 3 here? I'm looking at the file on screen and am pretty impressed with the look of it and detail and I've only done basic, 2 mins worth of editing. I'm wondering what others might think of my efforts considering the above comments about processing.
    You bet and it maybe worth trying some Raws now with Raw developer as well. Some changes have been made in both programs since our review.

    Also we went as neutral as possible since it was a test as to keep the comparison as normal as possible.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  33. #33
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    well, LR 3 is certainly easy to make adjustments, but the workflow sort of $uck$. This was ill lit (overcast again, hey we are talking Ireland, the temperate 'rainforest' :-)and what I am noticing is one of my frustrations with AF. I would have liked this scene WA closer in f11 and FOCUSED AT INFINITY.

    There's a whole website that likes to debunk hyperfocal distance (not that AF systems understand that; they just grab the high contrast areas)

    For land/sea or cityscapes it is better to have the distance in focus. The near end is hardly changed. Using the AF default or HF distance and you will get annoying OOF stuff (image #3)

    But thisn't bad for 30 sec as tjv says...
    If anyone wants to play with the raw, I will Yousendit

    Victor

    PS Not to jump on the critique bandwagon, but being restricted to 70mm is the pits. That is rapidly changing. The 35mm (28mm eq) is getting good reviews. Maybe there is a purpose in pushing for better processing - that is - there will be enough lenses to make the system interesting.
    And no, I don't agree with Guy, whatever he said!! LOL
    Last edited by gogopix; 14th June 2010 at 11:57.

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Victor ... please send me that damned RAW file ... I'd like a crack at it in LR3

    [email protected]

    -Marc

  35. #35
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Yougotit
    Can also be downloaded from:


    https://www.yousendit.com/download/Y...T2I5RlpjR0E9PQ

    Regards and good luck
    Victor

  36. #36
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by gogopix View Post
    [...]I would have liked this scene WA closer in f11 and FOCUSED AT INFINITY.

    There's a whole website that likes to debunk hyperfocal distance (not that AF systems understand that; they just grab the high contrast areas)

    For land/sea or cityscapes it is better to have the distance in focus. The near end is hardly changed. Using the AF default or HF distance and you will get annoying OOF stuff (image #3)[...]
    HF markings on lenses are all hopeless for someone who wants as close to perfection as is possible. They are almost all marked towards a medium-high standard for use with FILM not 100% pixel peeping high-resolution digital files.

    However doing your own testing for your lenses to establish an acceptable HF position will give you greater DOF with no loss in quality.

    There is always SOME position on a lens (both in theory and in all my practice) which is closer than infinity which leaves infinity perfectly* sharp. It's often much closer to infinity than the lens marking implies.

    *I use perfectly here in the practical-see-it-in-print sense and not mathmatical-theory ten digits of accuracy sense.

    Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
    __________________
    Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
    Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
    National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
    Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
    RSS Feed: Subscribe
    Buy Capture One at 10% off
    Personal Work

  37. #37
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Ok, just for grins, here's a P65+ that I just put thru the 30s LR drill
    Raw is here

    https://www.yousendit.com/download/Y...MGNJMHZ2Wmc9PQ

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    76

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Victor, do you by chance have similar photos taken with both the S2 and P65? I have only seen that comparison once in person.

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Here's my take in LR3 ... maybe my monitor's off or something ... but the original looked overexposed and flat to me.

    -Marc

  40. #40
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Was overexposed and flat.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  41. #41
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Was overexposed and flat.
    Isn t that a good starting point for a raw file? Expose to the right without blowing the highlights .

    Aren t raw files linear ? flat and the raw developer applies the tone curve?

    What I am getting at is the difference between a

    (1) High quality raw capture ,and

    (2) file that thru conversion yields a pleasing rendering without much fine tuning?

    DMR files for example appear finished right out of the camera . They look great in LR with no profile or presets . A Nikon D3X file looks to my eye as flat and not really all that sharp. But apply the right profile and presets and you can get a good file virtually everytime.

    I have no idea which approach yields better IQ when properly converted . But a don t think the fact that the D3X file is flat out of the camera is a big deal. I would expect for some applications like a printed page it might have more latitude.

  42. #42
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Highlights where blown. Also shadows where very clipped. ACR and LR clip the shadows with there defaults on S2 files. The highlights where also about a half stop over. Anyway I'm on a deadline but I see no improvement with ACR doing a S2 files. Same thing it did in November doing these, blow the highlights clip the shadows.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  43. #43
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Guy I let you get back to your work ..come back to this when you have time .

    I looked at the file in LR 3. The exposure is dead on ...look at the histogram and where the highlights and shadows are . There is some very light overexposure of about 1/3 stop in the whites of the boats .. a 1/5 stop correction pulls in most of it. The shadows are so close you can bring them back by dropping the shadows slider from 5 to 3. Maybe C1 does this automatically as LR would if you used auto settings. But that exposure is correct . I want maximum tones between highlights and shadows and I get it with a modest adjustment. I thought this was setting your white and black points.

    The issue with the capture is that the brightness of the scene tends to rob the saturation and vibrancy of the deep colors. Warming the white balance and shifting the tint really help . Doesn t always work but this brought back some of the faded red . Applying a standard curve of +10 light and -10 dark looked correct on my screen .

    On a D3X file it takes a lot more clarity ,vibrance and saturation to move in the direction of kodachrome(which is what I would want for that scene ).

    Sharpening looked normal landscape preset .

    I haven t compared my development with marc s but they looked similar. I am interested in both how marc processed the file and what his reaction to the final product.

    The final product isn t knocking my socks off but it took a while with the D3X and the M9 to find the right processing .

  44. #44
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Hollywood, FL
    Posts
    580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Here's my take on the file.

    Imported into LR3, applied my default S2 preset.

    Warmed up about +300K, brought down exposure 0.4, added a touch of recovery and a dab of fill light.

    Done. Exported to JPG.

    All in all, took about 30 seconds to season to taste. The hardest part was getting the final JPGs to be under 976K for the forum limit. Of course, in LR3, you can now just have LR manage your compression settings to get down to a specific file size.

    Personally, I like deep shadows and bright highlights (not blown, but bright). To me having too much shadow info with no black and too much highlight detail without white makes for a very flat and very "digital" looking file. My taste certainly isn't everyone's but I like my files to have depth and richness to them.

    David
    David Farkas
    Leica Store Miami

  45. #45
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    And my version created under duress.

  46. #46
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Guy I let you get back to your work ..come back to this when you have time .

    I looked at the file in LR 3. The exposure is dead on ...look at the histogram and where the highlights and shadows are . There is some very light overexposure of about 1/3 stop in the whites of the boats .. a 1/5 stop correction pulls in most of it. The shadows are so close you can bring them back by dropping the shadows slider from 5 to 3. Maybe C1 does this automatically as LR would if you used auto settings. But that exposure is correct . I want maximum tones between highlights and shadows and I get it with a modest adjustment. I thought this was setting your white and black points.

    The issue with the capture is that the brightness of the scene tends to rob the saturation and vibrancy of the deep colors. Warming the white balance and shifting the tint really help . Doesn t always work but this brought back some of the faded red . Applying a standard curve of +10 light and -10 dark looked correct on my screen .

    On a D3X file it takes a lot more clarity ,vibrance and saturation to move in the direction of kodachrome(which is what I would want for that scene ).

    Sharpening looked normal landscape preset .

    I haven t compared my development with marc s but they looked similar. I am interested in both how marc processed the file and what his reaction to the final product.

    The final product isn t knocking my socks off but it took a while with the D3X and the M9 to find the right processing .

    ACR and LR3 may have a different engine right now. Not sure

    I do not have LR on my system and most likely never will given I use C1.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    76

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    The image is over exposed, but not terribly so. It is very interesting to see the different versions of processing. I am putting up my quick version as well just to see how it compares on the web.

  48. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    76

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Well, my version looks too flat on the web. I need to work on my processing or at least web output.

  49. #49
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Gowin View Post
    Well, my version looks too flat on the web. I need to work on my processing or at least web output.
    Mark...it doesn't look flat on my monitor at all. Is Roger's version more to your liking?

    So hard to judge these images without knowing what the original scene looked like.....

    Gary
    Last edited by bensonga; 14th June 2010 at 18:44.

  50. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: S2 versus H4D40/50 test

    Ok, so here is a conversion from LR3 of one of Guy and Jack's review shots. I literally only opened this file, did a quick few edits to exposure, clarity and NR/Sharpening and converted straight to sRGB JPG. I'm a lightroom user but have only just downloaded LR3 so I'm not all that familiar with the new NR tools. I'm sure I could get more out of these with practice but I'm only looking at a small laptop screen that isn't really made for critical work, although it is calibrated... Full image and 100% crops...
    Last edited by tjv; 7th January 2012 at 01:23.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •